Scary Quote?

#26
#26
Sounds like the government is functioning fine. What's left is a sectarian issue that has gone on for centuries. Again, I ask how would this be solved?
 
#27
#27
If allowed to fester, what will the sectarian violence escalate to? The Iranians will become the big brother of the Shi'ites and the Sunnis will get creamed. Without continual support, the new government is toast... If it's true that the majority of the civilians want to give the new government a chance, then maybe we should stay, support the new government, train the Iraqi's and continue to modernize their infrastructure... I mean surely you don't think you're the only one who deserves democracy simply because things are stable here?
 
#28
#28
Again, I ask you for specifics....how do you plan on getting rid of centuries old hatred? Why did we allow these militias to remain armed?
 
#29
#29
CSpindizzy said:
Again, I ask you for specifics....how do you plan on getting rid of centuries old hatred? Why did we allow these militias to remain armed?
Click to expand...

You never give specifics...you argue simply to argue. You never make a point...Why, why, why... c'mon, dude, you can do better than that!!! Take a stance and support it. You can't argue a point with no foundation or basis. I think I've given you plenty to warrant a response of something besides, "again, I ask you" , which I am finding is your canned response to anything someone types in here.
 
#30
#30
You need to look in the mirror. You make statements and when held to them you cannot defend your own viewpoint. I have to repeat that because you cannot answer simple questions. How hard is it to answer questions about your own beliefs? Here's some free consulting advice...if you're going to take the time to publicly make a stance on an issue, have the ability to explain why and how. Coming on here and saying I believe this and not backing it up with substance and being able to respond to questions about it handicaps your credibility.
 
#31
#31
No, no..consulting is always welcomed. Consultants and their advice usually come from folks who have trouble practicing what they preach...not saying that's you, but it's usually the case. Take a look back at every time you set someone up on here. You operate by luring someone in by suggesting they say something they didn't. Your questions generally merit little response and if everyone responded in your manner there'd be no discussion...the key is discussion...acknowledge a point every now and then and respond with something besides a question and "again, I ask you." It's not necessary, at least in my judgement, for someone to respond to every single question you ask before you can respond. Granted, I'm new in here, but unless I missed it somewhere it's not like you're the self appointed forum king, here?
 
#32
#32
But to answer your question about the tribal rivalries and the century old battles...that answer is easy...there will be no end.
 
#33
#33
LOL....no. I just ask you about your stance. If I see a viewpoint with no meat, I will ask why. I'm not setting up anyone. You make a broad statement that leaves ambiguity. I ask follow up questions. If this bothers you, don't take a leadership position and please don't run for office. This happens constantly in those arenas.
 
#34
#34
Not at all...don't worry about it. At least I know what to expect from you. So what is your position? Throw it out there and let's take a look. On this topic of Iraq, specifically,...what should be done? What is your stance, if any? I'm not looking for another question...just an answer, please.
 
#35
#35
My position was voided the first day we went into Iraq. There was no need to send US forces into Iraq. My position was to pursue the man who actually killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. If there was a danger of WMD's it comes from Iran and not Iraq. We had 40% of Iraq already covered by air before a shot was fired. The Kurds were protected in the north. Saddam was backed into a corner and posed no threat whatsoever to the US. Had we pursued the real threats and pursued the actual criminal of 9/11, we would not be in the current situation.
 
#36
#36
CSpindizzy said:
My position was voided the first day we went into Iraq. There was no need to send US forces into Iraq. My position was to pursue the man who actually killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. If there was a danger of WMD's it comes from Iran and not Iraq. We had 40% of Iraq already covered by air before a shot was fired. The Kurds were protected in the north. Saddam was backed into a corner and posed no threat whatsoever to the US. Had we pursued the real threats and pursued the actual criminal of 9/11, we would not be in the current situation.
Click to expand...
This is where you and I disagree. I believe that our military has never lost focus of finding and capturing Osama bin Laden. I think that by rotating our brigades from the 25th, 10th, and 101st in Afghanistan we have done tremendously well. Finding one man in terrain such as Afghanistan and Pakistan is not an easy task. However, we have disabled OBLs ability to lead aQ as he did throughout the 90s. We have also done well keeping the peace in Afghanistan as well as build a country that has never had infrastructure. Just because the media has lost focus in Afghanistan does not mean that our military has. Also, just because OBL is alive, does not mean that he is in control.
 
#37
#37
The NATO commander today just came out and basically begged for reinforcements in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban is rebuilding quite nicely. Considering what is tucked away in Pakistan in an area we cannot touch, I don't see best efforts being displayed.

It really does not matter whether Bin Laden is in control or not. I think he is in more control than people think. But the fact that the men who masterminded the killing of 3000 innocent American civilians 5 years ago are still alive and not captured makes me think that from a justice standpoint, we have lost our way on that. As I mentioned on another topic, if someone like Reagan was in there, we would have taken the fight to these people and pursued at all costs. We would have captured the criminals and they'd be dead right now.
 
#38
#38
CSpindizzy said:
The NATO commander today just came out and basically begged for reinforcements in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban is rebuilding quite nicely. Considering what is tucked away in Pakistan in an area we cannot touch, I don't see best efforts being displayed.

It really does not matter whether Bin Laden is in control or not. I think he is in more control than people think. But the fact that the men who masterminded the killing of 3000 innocent American civilians 5 years ago are still alive and not captured makes me think that from a justice standpoint, we have lost our way on that. As I mentioned on another topic, if someone like Reagan was in there, we would have taken the fight to these people and pursued at all costs. We would have captured the criminals and they'd be dead right now.
Click to expand...
I would like to see OBL caught and publicly hanged. However, I am not kept awake at night feeling that he is in control of anything. I could be wrong.

Also, right now there is 1 infantry brigade operating in OEF. This next rotation, there will be 2 brigades. However, they are sending the artillery brigade back home. I think the feeling is that what is needed in Afghanistan at this point is more presence patrols and a lot less shelling.

On your last point, I am a big Reagan fan however, I do not believe he was as hard on American enemies as people have built him up to be. The Marine barracks in Lebanon was bombed in 1983, killing 241 Americans. Reagan removed American presence from Lebanon...
 
#40
#40
CSpindizzy said:
My position was voided the first day we went into Iraq. There was no need to send US forces into Iraq. My position was to pursue the man who actually killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. If there was a danger of WMD's it comes from Iran and not Iraq. We had 40% of Iraq already covered by air before a shot was fired. The Kurds were protected in the north. Saddam was backed into a corner and posed no threat whatsoever to the US. Had we pursued the real threats and pursued the actual criminal of 9/11, we would not be in the current situation.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of this, and disagree with other parts. I believe we can and must fight the war on terror on multiple fronts. UBL is most wanted, but the fact that it takes him 3 weeks to get a tape out tells me he is pretty isolated...and eventually, we'll get him. He is an icon to young Islamist terrorists and new recruits. If being a martyr is so important to him and he wants to die so badly, why does he not strap a bomb on himself? He's a hypocrit...and a hunted one.

I agree that the timing of Iraq was and still is a bit of a mystery to most everyone. Iran does seem like a better first target.

Iraq serves as another front on the war on terror. It is basically a lightning rod for terrorists and keeps them from attacking the US as much as they would if we didn't have a presence there. Plus, we were able to lift sanctions that had been in place. Being able to remove troops from SA also took some ammunition away from AQ since they used that as a recruiting tool.
 
#42
#42
J.Quest said:
Iraq serves as another front on the war on terror. It is basically a lightning rod for terrorists and keeps them from attacking the US as much as they would if we didn't have a presence there. Plus, we were able to lift sanctions that had been in place. Being able to remove troops from SA also took some ammunition away from AQ since they used that as a recruiting tool.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we went into Iraq and turned it into a breeding ground for all kinds of terrorists. Not exactly what I would call winning the war on terror. If Iraq is anything, it's a huge distraction from what should be the real war on terror. Sure, we're killing some terrorists in Iraq, but for every one we kill, we help them recruit 2 or 3 more.
 
#43
#43
therealUT said:
On your last point, I am a big Reagan fan however, I do not believe he was as hard on American enemies as people have built him up to be. The Marine barracks in Lebanon was bombed in 1983, killing 241 Americans. Reagan removed American presence from Lebanon...
Click to expand...

Sad, but true... we had to maintain the all to important Arab support...look where that gets us.
 
#44
#44
OWB said:
Yeah, we went into Iraq and turned it into a breeding ground for all kinds of terrorists. Not exactly what I would call winning the war on terror. If Iraq is anything, it's a huge distraction from what should be the real war on terror. Sure, we're killing some terrorists in Iraq, but for every one we kill, we help them recruit 2 or 3 more.
Click to expand...

But it's hard to argue that it's been 5 years since 9/11 and there has been no attack of significance on our soil. And if it is that easy for normal citizens to be recruited into terrorism, then maybe we are simply providing a catalyst for the inevitable?
 
#45
#45
J.Quest said:
But it's hard to argue that it's been 5 years since 9/11 and there has been no attack of significance on our soil. And if it is that easy for normal citizens to be recruited into terrorism, then maybe we are simply providing a catalyst for the inevitable?
Click to expand...

No there hasn't been an attack on our soil since 9-11, but look at the timeline of attacks on our soil. If anything, they've proven they can be patient. Meanwhile, they're striking everywhere else. This is supposed to be a "war on terror".. I thought that was worldwide? If we're just going to focus on the United States, why not bring our troops back and use them to tighten up security in all the places that were supposed to be tightened in the first place?

Now I'm not one that really liked Kerry, but when he said we'd have a better chance stopping terrorism through police work, I think he was right. You can't stop something you don't know about. To foil a terrorist plot, it starts with intelligence and then using your manpower to look into it and prevent it. I don't really buy into the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" routine. Nor do I think that if we pulled out of Baghdad, some of our cities streets would take it's place like W suggested.
 
#46
#46
OWB said:
Yeah, we went into Iraq and turned it into a breeding ground for all kinds of terrorists. Not exactly what I would call winning the war on terror. If Iraq is anything, it's a huge distraction from what should be the real war on terror. Sure, we're killing some terrorists in Iraq, but for every one we kill, we help them recruit 2 or 3 more.
Click to expand...


Silliness, we help them recruit 2 or 3 for everyone we kill?
 
#47
#47
OWB said:
This is supposed to be a "war on terror".. I thought that was worldwide?
Click to expand...

Me too...now is when you find out who your real friends are. So far...us and the Brits and a handful of smaller contributors.

OWB said:
Now I'm not one that really liked Kerry, but when he said we'd have a better chance stopping terrorism through police work, I think he was right.
Click to expand...

You mean police work literally? Certainly that's part of it...I think all levels of law enforcement are involved.
 
#48
#48
allvol123 said:
Silliness, we help them recruit 2 or 3 for everyone we kill?
Click to expand...

Not to mention making this "war on terror" a lot longer than we would ever want it to be. You don't think there are small children who are going to grow up to HATE Americans and the Western world because of our "influence?"
 
#49
#49
OWB said:
Not to mention making this "war on terror" a lot longer than we would ever want it to be. You don't think there are small children who are going to grow up to HATE Americans and the Western world?
Click to expand...

They were going to hate us either way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top