How Threatening is Terrorisim to America?

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And I'll kindly point you to Ho Chi Mihn, and the Vietnam war.

The difference between The republican guard and the Viet Cong? A little thing called willpower, salted with determination.

Saddam's regular army collapsed. They could'nt wave their underwear over their heads' fast enough. The 'elite' republican guard formation's simply could not stand by themselves, no matter what method we chose to use against them.

In Vietnam, the VC stood against our technology and won...sometimes, by going as lo-tech as possible. The root of they're campaign was to win as much support to they're side as possible. Now, jump up 30 years, and look at Iraq today. The insurgents' seem to have taken the example set forth by the VC. Boobytraps, sporadic engagements, Winning popular support, Out-of-country sanctuaries...The Iraqi insurgents seem to have been taught by former VC.

Now, I will say the Tech. helps, to be sure...It might be what wins you a battle or two. But, It takes alot more to win the war.

Well put

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by lazs2
soviet... I agree that terrorists will always be with us... for various reasons... it is not as simple as "take away their reason to hate us"  

If for instance their reason is that we won't make our women wear masks or that we won't bow to their 9th century religion... or that we simply are a bad example by our vary existence.

You are also correct that we will never be rid of them...

Sooo... given those two undeniable facts... the very best we can do is to minimize their ability to organize.   We can't appease em because... even if we convert... we will live in terror under their rule.. we can't walk away from em because they will bully and terrorize weaker nations into supporting them or outright converting to their sick interpretation of a religion.

If we pick a country in the heart of their region... their playground... any one will do..  and we make it so that it is invulnerable to their influence... their hold on other countries is much lessened...  

If we fight them and lose our will... walk away... what message does that send to countries who are trying to figure out what to do with their problem?

Like I said tho... I don't care... so long as it doesn't affect anything but the idiotic blue cities here... I already hate the airlines and metal detectors and all the BS homeland security stuff..  If we walk away.. that won't end.   It will become more because the democrats are better at restricting their own citizens than fighting.    We will see the terrorists emboldened by our wussing out and appeasment and they will attack us and the democrats will simply make life worse for us here over it with more bans and restrictions.

lazs

Lasz well put as well on the top part, we can't totally appease them and we can't go all out technology conventional war on them either.

But that part about democrats restricting. Who's restricting so much now that people are starting to worry about their freedoms? Isn't it Bush and his administration. Who's getting us killed in Iraq with almost nothing to show for it because he can't understand the situation. Isn't it Bush as well?

[Soviet]

Originally posted by lazs2
soviet... I agree that terrorists will always be with us... for various reasons... it is not as simple as "take away their reason to hate us"  

If for instance their reason is that we won't make our women wear masks or that we won't bow to their 9th century religion... or that we simply are a bad example by our vary existence.

You are also correct that we will never be rid of them...

Sooo... given those two undeniable facts... the very best we can do is to minimize their ability to organize.   We can't appease em because... even if we convert... we will live in terror under their rule.. we can't walk away from em because they will bully and terrorize weaker nations into supporting them or outright converting to their sick interpretation of a religion.

If we pick a country in the heart of their region... their playground... any one will do..  and we make it so that it is invulnerable to their influence... their hold on other countries is much lessened...  

If we fight them and lose our will... walk away... what message does that send to countries who are trying to figure out what to do with their problem?

Like I said tho... I don't care... so long as it doesn't affect anything but the idiotic blue cities here... I already hate the airlines and metal detectors and all the BS homeland security stuff..  If we walk away.. that won't end.   It will become more because the democrats are better at restricting their own citizens than fighting.    We will see the terrorists emboldened by our wussing out and appeasment and they will attack us and the democrats will simply make life worse for us here over it with more bans and restrictions.

lazs

I support going after any individuals that engage in terror but you need to understand that our foreign policy has failed.  By invading Iraq all we have done is create more terrorists.  Don't think that the rank and file al-qaeda members won't rest until Islam is brought to America or until all of our women are wearing Burqas.  That's just the talk of the loonies in charge, most people are engaging in terrorism because they just want to resist the US occupation in Iraq.  Also those in charge of this country are using Bin Laden's out there messages to just keep us engaged in this failing war on Terror.  It's naive to think that most members engaging in terrorism in Iraq are "Al-Qaeda."  Al-Qaeda is just prividing the inspiration for individuals in Iraq to rise up against the US occupation in Iraq.  By remaining there we're empowering dissent against us by giving them a reason to hate us.  To them we look like the big bad occupying force that kills their civilians.  Whether that's true or not that's how we appear.  Honestly what are we doing by staying in Iraq?  We're just endangering our national security, so what if Saddam was a bad guy?  That was none of our business, we can't just replace world leaders and topple governments because we think they're bad.  We considered the Soviets bad people during the cold war but we did not engage in a war of preemptive with them.  The most dangerous think as that Americans have accepted the doctrine of preemptive war in recent years which is a fundamentally un-American ideal.

Don't mistake what I say for pacifism.  I believe in squashing terror but there are better ways to do it than a full out conventional ground war, it failed in Vietnam and it will fail in Iraq.  The war in Iraq will not be won, no matter how long we stay there, there will always be people rising up against our occupation.  It's Vietnam all over again and no one will admit it.

[john9001]

the VC in Vietnam were wiped out in the tet offensive. They did not "win", the north Vietnamese army was also defeated.

nixon forced the north to the peace table, after nixon left office the democratic congress cut off ALL military support to the south and two years later the north invaded the south and won.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
I suggest you read this article then ask yourself how you'd feel if a "Mandella" like fella in your country was summarily replaced by the US .gov to secure Oil interests, which was then followed by US puppet that ruled with brutal oppression for 26 years.  

The reason Iranians hate the US is because we are a convenient scapregoat so they do not have to blame themselves.  

Their Shah (the US puppet that ruled with brutal oppression for 26 years) was Shah since his father abdicated under Russian pressure in 1941.

In 1951, the (mandela like) Dr. Mossadegh became Prime Minister, committed to nationalization of something called British Petroleum, so the British government invited Theodore's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, to London to talk of the overthrow of Mossadegh.

In 1953, massive communist demonstrations weakend Mossadegh political power and (right wing elements of) the Iranian Army, wishing to restore the monarchy overthrew Mossadegh.  The democracy lasted a scant 2 yrs.

The plot (Operation Ajax) consisted of coordination, bribery, and protection and transportation of the Shah.

If there weren't Iranians who provided the manpower for the coup, it would not have been successful.

[Soviet]

Originally posted by john9001
the VC in Vietnam were wiped out in the tet offensive. They did not "win", the north Vietnamese army was also defeated.

nixon forced the north to the peace table, after nixon left office the democratic congress cut off ALL military support to the south and two years later the north invaded the south and won.

Exactly, we lost as the American public realized how much of a quagmire Vietnam actually was.  The same thing will happen with Iraq, any of you who support the war are already a minority by a long shot.  Most American people do not want this war any more.  Just like Vietnam wasn't any of our business Iraq wasn't either.

[lazs2]

well soviet.. our policy may or may not have "failed" as you put it... I have no access to that data... our general on the ground and the troops say that we are making progress...

It is undeniable that we have made policy mistakes and mistakes of estimation of strengths and weakness but... I am not aware of any conflict...ever.. where this was not the case...

The point is that we are where we are at this point..  

The problem I have with your and ledpigs critique... is that no matter how I scrutinize your posts.... I see no solutions being offered..

To me a well rounded critique should include some ideas of how.... not so much it should have been done (20/20 hindsight) but....

What do we do now?   not fantasy things like send in the super hero squad of white guys to go to foreign countries and assasinate em... but real solutions for THIS WAR.

I say we are pretty much stuck with it... I don't think that is such a bad thing tho.

What are Americans "tired" of?   what sacrafices are we making for this war?   Where are the thousands of protesters in the streets every day?  

No... I don't think most Americans care that much one way or the other.  

Personally... I don't care that much either... no skin off my butt either way... I don't care about skyscrapers or cities full of blue voters much...

I do care about and support our troops... I care about what they say and what they want.   They want to finish...  it is undoubtably (I think you can agree) in our best interest to have a success there but....

Like I said.. who cares?  If the soldiers start telling me it is a waste then I will support them on that too.... right or wrong...

since it is they...not you or I... who are doing the heavy lifting... we are doing NOTHING.    

The only way to support the troops is to help them achieve whatever that is that they want to do.

with that in mind... and taking into account that the surrender monkeys have no real plan except "run and hide" for a solution... I see no point in not simply giving the military the time it needs to decide one way or the other.

lazs

[LEADPIG]

Even if the democratic congress hadn't cut off funding (they realized it was pointless) the VC would have whiped or tulips using the peashooters they were using while we mobilized F-105 Thunderchief squadrons and sent them to hit dirt in the middle of the jungle. Iraq is equally stupid and pointless.

[Soviet]

There have been thousands of protests.  I never see them reported by the media but I live 25 miles away from New York City and am usually there at least 2 or 3 days out of the week.  I've witnessed massive anti-war protests taking up city blocks.  Here's a list of every single war protest ever had against the war in Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War


Yes, I have a solution. We stop policing the world, we stop having our troops in military bases throughout the world.  George W. Bush ran on the platform of no more nation building like we had with Clinton.  Instead he's engaged in more nation building on a larger scale than any President in recent history.  The war in Iraq isn't working, let's bring the troops home.  Progress is not being made,  we have the same amount of troops there as we did last year.  Troops are still dying in a large number like we are. Neo-conservatism has destroyed the Republican party and has taken away many of the party's supporters, do you really want to see a liberal President in 2008?  Do you really want Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton to win?  Greater than 70% of Americans are now against this war, supporting it could prove to be suicidal in 2008.  This same support cost the party the election in 2006

I recommend all of you take a look into Dr. Ron Paul's campaign.  He's a man of principle who has some very good ideas on what this nation should do.  Don't take my word on what to do, take this 10 term US republican congressman and medical doctor's take.  http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

The Republican party used to stand for small government which is why I voted for George Bush in 2000.  I favor small government as that's the way America is intended to be under the US constitution.  Now all we have is a Democratic party that wants to use big government to make a welfare state and a Republican party who likes to use big government for war and the military.  There is an alternative and Ron Paul is that.

True conservatives favor small government and are against war.

[lazs2]

ledpig.. you really need to read about the vietnam war and Abrams contribution.   We were winning in a big way.   even the government of south vietmam was coming along... the vietcong did not defeat us.. we never lost a battle and we inflicted losses that they could not sustain.

Most of the northern generals will admit that they were on their last legs... even after the democrats betrayed the south vietnamese army with funding.. they managed to hold off the north on their own... often with 10 rounds of ammo per man.

We were "defeated"  or, forced to leave.. not by the enemy but by the media and the politicians and by the fact that our young men would not fight in a war were we were not allowed to attack those supplying the enemy.

Iraq is really nothing like vietnam.. there is no "north" that we must keep hands off.... there is no government we are fighting.    There are no draftees wondering what in the hell our goal is and why we aren't attacking the enemy.

And.... admit it or not... there are no demonstrations.... Americans really don't care much one way or the other... a few polls... some gains by democrats in elections... no demonstrations of thousands every day... no deserter soldiers on the news every night with stories of hoplessness and massacres...

I have lived through one event and am now living through another and believe me.... they are nothing alike.   I doubt the war is even discussed once a week by anyone except politicians out to get some advantage out of it and their media hacks trying desperately to sell another newspaper before they go under.

lazs

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by lazs2
well soviet.. our policy may or may not have "failed" as you put it... I have no access to that data... our general on the ground and the troops say that we are making progress...

It is undeniable that we have made policy mistakes and mistakes of estimation of strengths and weakness but... I am not aware of any conflict...ever.. where this was not the case...

The point is that we are where we are at this point..  

The problem I have with your and ledpigs critique... is that no matter how I scrutinize your posts.... I see no solutions being offered..

To me a well rounded critique should include some ideas of how.... not so much it should have been done (20/20 hindsight) but....

What do we do now?   not fantasy things like send in the super hero squad of white guys to go to foreign countries and assasinate em... but real solutions for THIS WAR.

I say we are pretty much stuck with it... I don't think that is such a bad thing tho.

What are Americans "tired" of?   what sacrafices are we making for this war?   Where are the thousands of protesters in the streets every day?  

No... I don't think most Americans care that much one way or the other.  

Personally... I don't care that much either... no skin off my butt either way... I don't care about skyscrapers or cities full of blue voters much...

I do care about and support our troops... I care about what they say and what they want.   They want to finish...  it is undoubtably (I think you can agree) in our best interest to have a success there but....

Like I said.. who cares?  If the soldiers start telling me it is a waste then I will support them on that too.... right or wrong...

since it is they...not you or I... who are doing the heavy lifting... we are doing NOTHING.    

The only way to support the troops is to help them achieve whatever that is that they want to do.

with that in mind... and taking into account that the surrender monkeys have no real plan except "run and hide" for a solution... I see no point in not simply giving the military the time it needs to decide one way or the other.

lazs

Lasz i've said it a million times. Stay in Iraq. Now thats it's been started. Strengthen the policing forces as much as we can, and get the hell out. Not "stay the course to nowhere" to infinity. Stop being antagonistic with Iran, it hasn't got to that point, if we keep acting as we have it will get to full scale war. What will most likely happen is this.. we leave it stays toghether for the most six months, people start atacking the new powers and American installed institutions. As things weaken Iran will get more and more involved, probably invade, (unfortunately i don't think diplomacy will help this). Mass craziness in the region spreading into surrounding territories. The U.N. gets involved, we try to stay out, terrorism strenthens, we all go to hell. I wouldn't have started it the first place, i say pull out in a little while, go more covert and seek out the individual terror cells and destroy them, instead of trying to throw a blanket over a flea using the U.S. Army and hoping your going to catch it.

[Soviet]

There is no draft.  If there was a draft you would see massive protests in the street, and with good reason.  That's the only reason there were protests constantly during the Vietnam war and there aren't as many today, but they still exist.  Don't count protesters as the only ones that disagree with the war.  Most Americans are against this war, not all are protesting but the majority of Americans are not against this war anymore.  Support the troops, BY BRINGING THEM HOME.

Oh and regarding the protests, just because the news doesn't report it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  This is the same press that was pressured into not photographing the dead brought home from the war.  A direct violation of the first amendment right of freedom of the press.

[lazs2]

soviet... first you say you have a solution and then... you say...

Bring the troops home... that is not a solution... that will solve nothing except bring home troops that really don't want to leave just yet.

You do give solutions for the future.   that doesn't help right now with this situation... try to think in the present.

As for the demonstrations?  pitiful... even NPR admits that the demonstrations just don't exist in any meaningful way.   They are so lame that even the press ignores em... halfhearted at best and not well attended... Face it.. Americans aren't that fed up.   If we suddenly had some real progress showing...or even one week of good news from Iraq would change the polls in an instant.

As for ron paul... sure but it's a sucker bet.   I am an individualist... kinda like a libertarian but not so whimpy... I know that libertarians probly would give me more of a government that would fit me than the other two parties but...

I also know it is a fools bet... a fart in the wind... suckers bet.   never happen.  

The best thing a libertarian could hope for is to get republicans to vote for him... he will never get a democrat to vote for him.    All a libertarian can do is hurt the republicans.

That would be fine except... that would allow a democrat in.   I am not fond of republicans but would 100 times rather see the worst republican in than the best democrat.  

just as a strong ralph (nutcase) nader is good for republicans... a strong ron paul is good for democrats.

Why do you think ron paul is maskerading as a republican and not a democrat?

A democrat is the exact oppossite of a libertarian while a republican is just a degree off from one.

lazs

[lazs2]

well... this is a turn of events.

ledpig.. we agree.. we need to stay long enough for the iraqi police and military forces to recover and take over... we are doing that and making progress (according to the general and troops) we need to stay to help em train and take over.

and soviet.. that is very perceptive..  there is indeed no draft.   Why do you suppose that is?  why do you suppose the democrats want it so much?

No.. we have learned some lessons it would appear.

As for the media not covering the demonstrations?  come on now... I really give you a lot more credit than that... you must admit how desperate that one looked?   You are not that dumb as to say that the media is a supporter of the war effort to the point of suppressing bad news on any front...

If the protests were not so pitiful the media would be rolling in em like a dog in 3 day old road kill.  with the same gleefully glazed look in their eyes.

lazs