mespock
Marxists - Socialists
Joeychgo said:
This is true.... you can't hide behind the church...
Bush 'open to any idea' on Iraq
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
This is true.... you can't hide behind the church...
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
fossten said:
I'm sorry I misquoted him from memory. I remember his smirk at the podium and saying somthing about great crusaders. What he said was on 9/16/01:" This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. "
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
My take on this, we needed to finish our job in Afghanistan FIRST and CRUSH the Taliban / Al-Quida and maybe we'd get lucky to capture/kill Osama before we even entertained the idea of going after Saddam. We did a half-assed job in Afghanistan due to not enough troops. If we can target a fly on the lapel of a captain of a ship from 200 miles away (or so the Navy would like us to believe from their commercials), there's no excuse for letting Osama Bin Ladin escape into the mountains of Tora Bora. Once that mission was completed, then we could've put our full focus AND resources (troops) onto Saddam and that mission, and not have to worry about a "resurgent Taliban" or "Al-Quida in Iraq". The way its played out, BuSh, Cheney and Rummy has spread our troops too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan and the result is a half-assed job of both. I'm not sure if we even HAVE enough troops now that we could deploy in those kind of numbers into Iraq considering most are on their 2nd or 3rd deployment and we've tapped heavily into our reserves. This is an oversimplification, but anyone who's played RISK knows if you want to make progress against your enemy you can't spread your troops too thin, or you'll get walked right over. After 3+ years, all BuSh and co. have done was to reinforce any "Paper Tiger" opinion the world has of us by fighting these two wars like panseys. And I'm not buying the excuse that BuSh and co were trying to be "politically palitable" by advertising these wars as being easy and not sending in enough troops and resources to begin with. 3 years ago BuSh and co. had all the "mandate" and support of both sides of the aisle that he could've dreamed for and gone in with anything he pleased. Too bad he's squandered that too.
pbslmo
Lincoln LS rules
I really enjoy playing Risk.
Perhaps you could define what "crushing" an international terrorism network means, exactly. And since Al Queda did have relations with Iraq and Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, didn't you just contradict yourself?JohnnyBz00LS said:
Are you saying that nothing else should have been done until Afghanistan was completely rebuilt- a task we have in large part turned over to Nato. Do you not think the international community is capable of doing such a thing?
Since Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, what's your point? Would you like to send U.S. forces in Pakistan? What about the inevitable instability within that country that would result and the consequences of Mussarif being overthrown? I certainly would hope that Islamic radicals wouldn't take control of that nuclear power. I'm sure you've considered that though.
See, that's sort of the bitch, we DO NOT haev the technology to target a fly on the lapel of a captain of ship IF THAT SHIP IS HIDING and moving through the intricate cave system of a remote, rural section of the world that resembles hell.
Completed what? Rebuilt that crap hole country? Turned it into a thriving free-market democracy? How long do you think that could have been done? Perhaps you know of a way to bring foreign investment into a country with no infrastructure, no education, and security challenges?
So what "mission" do you think we could have achieved within a year or two? Because apparently overthrowing one government, establishing a democratic government and a constitution, holding elections, and then turning over the "peace building" to the Europeans doesn't qualify in your mind.
I think I've demonstrated that you're premise is horribly flawed. How do you eliminate any "resurgent Taliban"- genocide? And "Al-Quida in Iraq"- are you so confused that you think Al-Queda is from Afghanistan, or that all their operations are based from that country? They are a terrorist network. The Taliban and Afghanistan were really just a host country. The Taliban had as much to do with 9-11 as any other country friendly to terror.
This is a sad gross oversimplification that is neither truthful or accurate. But just by glancing at your above post, you've demonstrated how limited your understanding of the situation really is.
Let's examine this-
Sending in more troops means more fighting. The mere presence of troops doesn't deter violence, especially when it's recognized that they aren't able to use aggressive force. Are you saying that you would support an, arguably brutal at times, war effort to crush any remnant of insurgency or instability in that region? To send in greater numbers, for any other reasons, simply means MORE TARGETS.
Are you one of the people who fixated on the Abu Ghraib story. Who oppose water boarding. And who sides against the U.S. every time there is a story of U.S. abuse of power or Iraqi casualties?
Because, what you're advocating is an intensification of violence. It's a valid position, but it seems contradictory coming from you. You might want to clarify.
I'm glad you recognize the oversimplification, but equating this situation to a game of RISK demonstrates your naivety.
RISK is based on 19th century warfare, with battling nations. The challenge here is due to the non-state actors and the asymetric warfare taking place. In terms of "size" one B-52 can't even be compared to a guy with a remote controlled bomb.
So, you think we need to fight more aggressively.
No more complaining when a mosque is destroyed? No more complaining if "the wrong person was killed?" No more of that stuff?
See if you, and your ilk, took that tone at the launch of the war, perhaps things would have been different. But now you're advocating a much more intense warfare, with a spike in causalities on both sides.
I'm not arguing the position, I'm trying to define yours. Am I incorrect?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Just wait and see how the DriveByMedia starts to paint a different picture of the war in Iraq after January's swearing in of the Dimwits. It will be the biggest flip-flop in American history.Calabrio said:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
You shouldn't use such big words. It confuses him.
FreeFaller
USAF LS8
Great response Calabrio! It completely negated any reason for me to respond. It was beautiful
I mean...c'mon Johnny...you compared the most complicated global conflict in history to a child's friggin board game???
I mean...c'mon Johnny...you compared the most complicated global conflict in history to a child's friggin board game???
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
FreeFaller said:
What??? You don't think the Dimwits Pelosi and Reid are playing a game of Risk right now trying to figure out their new foreign policy plans? Don't put it past them brother....
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, I think the current conflict more closely resembles "Stratego."
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Gee, Johnny, I guess you haven't heard. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, Afghanistan has SUDDENLY turned around and is hopeful again.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-09-afghanistan-survey_x.htm
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Ya, take a look. 44% of Afgans and 47% of Iraqis think their country is going in the right direction. Compare those numbers to the morons in this country that decided we needed a 'change'.
Grab your ankles boys. We are in for a 'thumping'.
Grab your ankles boys. We are in for a 'thumping'.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Afghan and U.S. forces arrest key al-Qaeda member in southeast Afghanistan
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-13-al-qaeda-arrest_x.htm
Updated 11/13/2006 9:42 AM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. and Afghan forces have arrested a senior al-Qaeda member in southeastern Afghanistan, a provincial police chief said Monday, confirming a report last week by coalition officials.
The troops detained four Afghans, an Arab and a Pakistani on Thursday in the city of Khost, said Mohammad Ayub, the provincial police chief.
Ayub said he could not confirm a report in the Pakistani daily, The News, that one of the detainees was Abu Nasir al-Qahtani, one of four Arab al-Qaeda operatives who escaped from the U.S. prison in Bagram in July 2005.
"What I can tell you is that he is an important al-Qaeda member," Ayub said.
U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick on Monday declined to identify or confirm the name of the detainee.
Coalition forces in Afghanistan last week said that a "known al-Qaeda terrorist" and five other extremists were arrested on Nov. 6 near Khost. It said the detainee has "known ties to al-Qaeda leadership," and was detained with Saudi and Pakistani nationals.
Four al-Qaeda operatives last year broke out of the detention facility in Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, fleeing through barbed wire stockades in the first escape from the compound since the American military took over the former Soviet air base.
Afghan police had identified the four as Abdullah from Syria, Mohammed al-Qatari from Saudi Arabia, Mahmood Ahmad from Kuwait, and Abulbakar Mohammed Hassan from Libya. Some of these names were aliases.
The Pentagon later identified one of the four fugitives as Omar al-Farouq — one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants in Southeast Asia.
Gee, Johnny, you're right, Afghanistan sucks. </sarcasm>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-13-al-qaeda-arrest_x.htm
Updated 11/13/2006 9:42 AM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. and Afghan forces have arrested a senior al-Qaeda member in southeastern Afghanistan, a provincial police chief said Monday, confirming a report last week by coalition officials.
The troops detained four Afghans, an Arab and a Pakistani on Thursday in the city of Khost, said Mohammad Ayub, the provincial police chief.
Ayub said he could not confirm a report in the Pakistani daily, The News, that one of the detainees was Abu Nasir al-Qahtani, one of four Arab al-Qaeda operatives who escaped from the U.S. prison in Bagram in July 2005.
"What I can tell you is that he is an important al-Qaeda member," Ayub said.
U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick on Monday declined to identify or confirm the name of the detainee.
Coalition forces in Afghanistan last week said that a "known al-Qaeda terrorist" and five other extremists were arrested on Nov. 6 near Khost. It said the detainee has "known ties to al-Qaeda leadership," and was detained with Saudi and Pakistani nationals.
Four al-Qaeda operatives last year broke out of the detention facility in Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, fleeing through barbed wire stockades in the first escape from the compound since the American military took over the former Soviet air base.
Afghan police had identified the four as Abdullah from Syria, Mohammed al-Qatari from Saudi Arabia, Mahmood Ahmad from Kuwait, and Abulbakar Mohammed Hassan from Libya. Some of these names were aliases.
The Pentagon later identified one of the four fugitives as Omar al-Farouq — one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants in Southeast Asia.
Gee, Johnny, you're right, Afghanistan sucks. </sarcasm>
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
For someone most skeptical of polls, I'm suprised you missed this....
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
I see your knee-jerk reactions are in fine tune too. In case you don’t remember, it was Al-Quida, inspired and financed by Osama Bin Ladin, who was responsible for 9/11 and they were being “harbored” by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It wasn’t until GW’s lame attempt at capturing OBL that he escaped into Pakistan. Certainly, while Al-Quida leaders may have had a beer or smoked a peace pipe w/ Saddam once or twice, they were not exactly BFFs and were NOT in cahoots on 9/11. Additionally, Al-Quida did not have the presence in Iraq then that they enjoy there today. YOU KNOW THAT, so quit trying to obfuscate the issue. And finally, I never said that we needed to wait until the last coat of fresh paint dries in Afghanistan before we continued our GWOT elsewhere. I piss on your ridiculous strawman. What I said was WE NEEDED TO CRUSH THE TALIBAN, and eliminate that safety net they provided to Al-Quida THERE. While that may not have eliminated the possibility of Al-Quida moving into Iraq from elsewhere, it certainly would’ve prevented the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan that IS OCCURING TODAY, and it certainly would’ve put a dent in Al-Quida’s recruitment capabilities. But due to the BuSh administration’s incompetence and “hard-on for Saddam”, we failed BOTH of those missions in Afghanistan.
Calabrio said:
1st, you took my statement out of context (typical lame debating tactic), as I was speaking in retrospect, not of the present time. As I said above, OBL WAS in Afghanistan until we let him escape to the safety of Pakistan. We missed that great opportunity, THANKS TO BuSh and his “great military leaders”. It’s too late now to do anything “easy” in Pakistan, but then again, they are not yet one of our great nuclear allies now either, are they? I don’t think now is the time we need to do anything w/ Pakistan, but that day IS coming.
Calabrio said:
You are correct that kind of technology that can see through mountains doesn’t exist, but I’m sure we have some special-ops teams who are fully capable of such a mission to secretly locate and target OBL.
Calabrio said:
I really hope you are not advocating that the US leaves countries we enter (and not always with their “permission”) to remove terrorists in a shambles when we leave. But if you are, then that is very sad, as you’d be the epitome of why the US is hated by so many abroad and would only add justification for the terrorists’ motives.
Calabrio said:
I assume you are referring to Iraq now. The “mission” I refer to is all of what you stated MINUS our troops being sitting ducks getting picked-off by insurgent snipers and IEDs. More troops on our side would mean we could’ve put forth a much more aggressive offensive against the insurgents and routed them out of their strongholds and provided much better security for the critical infrastructure rebuilding of that country. Do you really feel that we would’ve been more efficient or more successful with FEWER troops?? I hardly think you do.
If you were referring to Afghanistan, the "mission" I refer to is the crushing of the Taliban. Like w/ OBL, we had them on the run, then before we finished the job we turned our backs and moved to Iraq.
Calabrio said:
Quit pussy-footing around this. Did we go into Afghanistan to put the Taliban out of power PERMANENTLY or NOT? If we DID, then we FAILED MISERABLY because they are on the comeback. But hey, at least GW got his buddy Karazai in power long enough to get that natural gas pipeline built. Or was that the REAL and ONLY reason we went into Afghanistan??? Or are you now claiming that "Hey, those Tally-Ban guys aren't so bad afterall"??
Calabrio said:
Are you taking issue with “spreading our troops too thin” or the “half-assed job of both” part?? If it’s the latter, you are entitled to your own opinion. If it’s the “spreading of troops too thin” part, in the face of the facts that we have been digging deep into our reservists and a high percentage of our enlisted soldiers are serving their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, what evidence do you offer to counter it? DO WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DEPLOY 150,000 MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ?? Simple question, YES or NO.
Calabrio said:
Lots of conjecture and speculation on your part there. 1st of all, what would be the point of sending in more troops just to have them stand around and evoke their “presence” upon Iraq?? And WHO says they can’t use “aggressive force”?? Did you just make that up? Or are you making an attempt to tangentially link the prison abuse scandals (which BTW HAS resulted in court marshals) to some illusionary restriction on our soldiers’ ability to “use aggressive force” on the battlefield?? I’m not advocating an “intensification of violence”, I’m advocating an “intensification of success”.
Calabrio said:
The current struggle between US troops and the insurgency in Iraq remains based on essentially door-to-door, hand-to-hand combat. Unless we are carpet-bombing Baghdad w/ B-52s (which we’re not) or nuking the whole city, NUMBERS RULE, and there is safety for our troops in numbers. If you think otherwise, then you are more clueless than I had thought.
Calabrio said:
Did I personally EVER complain about mosques being bombed or of innocents being killed?? If so, please point this out as I don’t recall that I have. However, from your tone and your phrase “you, and your ilk”, I have to assume you are unfairly lumping me into the group of extreme left-wing anti-war types (big surprise coming from you, LOL). In any case, this entire country WAS united behind GW at the launch of the war in Iraq, certainly so at the launch of the GWOT in Afghanistan. It wasn’t until late ’04 and early ’05 that this country really started taking sides, when the search for WMDs came up empty. That is why I’m not buying the cop-out excuse now coming from the shrubbies that GW should’ve / would’ve / could’ve, been more aggressive “if it wasn’t for those doggone liberal democrats”. That is BS. As for your misguided illusion of me as an "anti-war" liberal, what I AM is "anti-stick-our-dicks-in-a-meatgrinder-until-we-die", which is what Iraq has turned into.
Here’s my postion for “winning” in Iraq: GET ‘ER DONE, if that means more troops sent in to crush the insurgency at the cost of a short-term spike in casualties, so be it. I’d contend that if we would’ve adopted such an approach 2+ years ago, we would’ve seen a spike of less than 1000 US casualties over 2-3 months, which is MUCH better than the 2000+ US casualties we’ve seen since then. However, I think a better approach would be to put pressure on the Iraqi government to step up their game by giving them a firm timetable: “Get your sectarian violence under control by March ’07 (for example) or we’re out of there and you are left on your own to sink or swim”. Then, come March ’07, we start pulling troops out to nearby boarders and see what happens. If the peace-loving Iraqi people and their government REALLY want us gone and can control their own destiny, then everyone wins. If they regress into chaos, we step back in w/ guns ablaze and finish it the hard way.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Looks like you are at odds with the premature ejaculators now running your party...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13military.html?ei=5065&en=aaecf1f8312791fc&ex=1164085200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Time to place bets on how soon we'll be attacked here in the U.S. after Dems take office in January.
My bet is by June 2007, just in time to correspond with the withdrawal plans so the terrorists can show the attacks and the corresponding video of us pulling out.
Should really whip the 'ol islamic facists into a ' allahu akbar ' frenzy.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:Go for it Bryan. You've been wrong on every other prediction.
It's not groundhogs day. What are you doing crawling out of your hole?:shifty: