Author Topic: Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, silly Americans  (Read 641 times)

Offline Steve

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6728
Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, silly Americans
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2003, 11:40:18 AM »
MJ, I politely disagree w/ your assessment.  Like someone else mentioned:  I'd rather have Al Queda streaming towards armed U.S. Soldiers than unarmed civilians.  Also, having them bring the fight to us is probably cheaper and faster than hunting them out of their rabbit holes.  
To be sure, having  terrorists that blend in to the population is not ideal, but I really think it beats the alternatives.
Member: Hot Soup Mafia - Cream of Myshroom
Army of Muppets  Yes, my ingame name is Steve

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, silly Americans
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2003, 12:23:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Steve
MJ, I politely disagree w/ your assessment.  Like someone else mentioned:  I'd rather have Al Queda streaming towards armed U.S. Soldiers than unarmed civilians.  Also, having them bring the fight to us is probably cheaper and faster than hunting them out of their rabbit holes.  
To be sure, having  terrorists that blend in to the population is not ideal, but I really think it beats the alternatives.


To be clear, I didn't intend to say that having terrorists concentrated in Iraq against armed soliders was better or worse.  My original comment was that, for us sitting here safe and sound (more or less) we shouldn't get too excited and rejoice about having a concentration of dangerous people near US and UK servicepeople.  I too think it makes the job of hunting them down easier, and also agree that it dilutes any resources they may have to attack unarmed civilians, and in that sense is a blunder on the part of Al Qaeda or whomever.  My point was that most soldiers do not relish the idea of confronting a fanatical enemy who blends in with the local population, and was a response to one of the previous posts which suggested (as I read it) that the situation was somehow to be "celebrated".

As to the "Iraqiazation" of the country, again I agree that such was the plan from the start.  But again, the US media (perhaps the US "liberal" media) is painting, in my view, a different picture.  Again, the news report that I saw yesterday suggested that a pull back was being contemplated to (a) conserve and concentrate US resources and (b) minimize US forces exposure to potentially hostile populations.  In the report I saw, the proposed pullback was not linked with a return of policing and patrolling to the Iraqis.

I won't get into the whole "winning the hearts and minds" debate, but from what I see and read (again, US media sources primarily), regardless of the good intentions of the United States and their extraordinary efforts, I don't know how tolerant most Iraqis will continue to be of a continued US presence in their country.

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, silly Americans
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2003, 12:25:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
You're missing the point.  The northern towns are under kurdish control.  They'd pull the troops out of their because they aren't really needed.  A "quick reaction force" would be in case we learned "oops, we're needed after all".  That aspect is hardly comparable to Vietnam.


Replace the word "Kurds" with "T'ai" and "Montagnard" and it'll get real scary.

I'm reading "Street Without Joy" and I see a lot of parallels forming.