Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Saburo I'm sensitive to your need not be called names, but I have to express my view that your ideas in this topic strike me as naive and not all that well thought out.
You miss the point entirely. Why do you have this constant apparant need to throw labels at people that happen to disagree with you?
You also have this bad habit of framing your opponent's argument to something that suits your argument.
The first part will only lead to closed threads, warnings (and possibly bannings) from Skuzzy. I feel Skuzzy has more important things to do with his time. If you can't articulate your argument clear enough without resorting to insults and name calling, perhaps you should look in the mirror and look hard.
Second part, we'll leave to continued discussions.
End of the reasons for childish namecalling. I hope you finally get it. Let your argument speak for itself.
********
You still keep doging the cost and casualty questions that I've asked twice already. Care to finally answer them or do you just want to keep dodging?
Do you really think that the Al Quaeda camps (as well as other terrorist camps are located only in Afghanistan??
What do these camps look like?
Any videos of their getting shot/blown up?
How many have we found?
You think these Al Quaeda are actually stupid enough to stay in any organized place long enough to be found after an official announcement and invasion of a major military force?
The ones in Afghanistan scattered. That's what small groups have is mobility and why our present military ops are not going to win this war against terrorists. It will bankrupt us.
Are we going to invade and go to war with every nation that could house terrorists?
How about Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Libya? Egypt? Yemen? Syria? (This is just the Middle East area)
How about in the Americas?
The 9/11 terrorists got some of their training here in the US and possibly Canada. They definitely were staying in our two countries for a while before the attacks.
How about in Asia?
Europe?
You keep aluding to Vietnam, but our present ops are closer to Vietnam than what I was aluding to.
We've entered a new era of warfare, one against very small groups that are essentially countryless. Their allegience is to themselves as a cause, not a country. They've got small pockets in most continents. They are usually independent of each other and fighting for their own causes.
What we need to do is deploy more satelites to keep a stationary position over suspected sites. Upon suspected activity, we increase recon overflights and we start deploying our nearest Navy Carrier group. After closer scrutiny, we deploy Special Ops troops (Force Recon, Seals, Sniper/Observation Teams, etc) for a confirmation. If confirmed as a threat to the US (or our allies) we take out hostile "military" personnel that happen to take an active defense. Primary goal is to snatch alive our targets for interrogation.
In short, we're in, we're out. Minimal cost in casualties and comparitive dollars (compared to present day ops in Afghanistan).
You catch the enemy when he is least expecting it, not when he's in hiding. We just need to catch a few members to get the info of where most of the rest of their group is.
What we're not doing is our present Vietnam style search and destroy ops which are costing waay to much in our own soldiers getting killed, innocent civillian casualties, and dollars.
We also need to be paying much more attention to what's going on at our own borders. I'm more concerned with terrorists coming into my country than some dessert in the Middle East/Asia/Africa.
So give us the figures here and show us how successful our Afghanistan campaign is. BTW, another reason to minimize civillian casualties is not help the enemy your seeking. Friends and family of those that die can not care less that it was as accident or misjudgement. Quickest way of making your enemy stronger. Don't discount that.
