Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

 

2008-01-29 19:53:39
san4
The Mas
+311|6972|NYC, a place to live

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

The terrorists want to topple western civilization, if you do not think they will do so if you let them you are naive. I believe these radicals have more support from Islam as a whole than you or Cam, are willing to admit to.
paranoia, anybody ? "topple western civilization" ? give me a break. Even if that were the explicit intent of the radical muslims, their number is so ridiculously small, they have so little political representation, and so little military capabilities, that it is absolutely unimaginable that they could ever pose a realistic threat to the combined economic, political, and military powers of the western world.
I mean, there isn't even a union among islamic countries, for god's sake. To the contrary, most islamic nations have strong economic and political ties with the western world. Some are even close US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan.

What we are talking about here is a tiny, miniscule minority among radical muslims. And all they can do is blow up a car bomb here, or an embassy there, or maybe send a couple of airliners into the WTC. Tragic, sad, horrendous crimes, I agree, but not a threat to western societies.

Those can easily be dealt with through a combined effort of the world's police and counter-terrorism communities, without us having to force our version of freedom and democracy onto other cultures. That is my strong conviction.
Al Qaeda and its satellites probably want to destroy Western civilization, but I agree, they don't seem to be a threat on that scale at this point.

But I think they are a symptom of a dangerous disease. There are millions of muslims in the middle east and elsewhere who have a very negative view of the U.S. and western Europe. They are much more powerful than the tiny radical fringe. Their countries have close ties with the west at this point, but many of the Arab oil-producing nations are ripe for revolutions. Their leaders are corrupt, flying their private jets around the world while people in their countries live in the stone age. God help the West if half a dozen anti-US theocracies control 75% of the world's oil. The little people, who blame the US for propping up their brutal leaders--they are a real threat.
2008-01-29 19:57:33
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,981|6916|949

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Varegg wrote:

9/11 was a sucess for Al Qaida in two different ways, firstly it struck in the heart of a country that hasn't seen homeland attacks since Pearl and secondly it brought their most dreaded enemy right on their doorstep making it able for them to kill Americans on their own turf.
The United States also killed more muslims within the last 7 years than we have in our entire history.  I dont think AQ wanted this too much.
I don't think Al-Qaeda really cares about that statistic.  They got what they wanted - name recognition in media, perceived power in international politics, tension on the international stage due to an obvious course of action in the retaliation for 9/11.  I don't think they made a calculated decision to bring the U.S. into Iraq, but I'm sure the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan was obvious.

What is interesting is that many counterterrorism experts have claimed Al-Qaeda as all but dead, because of the removal of a large amount of their command chain.  AQ-I is somewhat of a seperate organization, as are the AQ variations in Northern Africa and Central Asia.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-29 20:01:17)

2008-01-29 20:00:03
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6928

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Varegg wrote:

9/11 was a sucess for Al Qaida in two different ways, firstly it struck in the heart of a country that hasn't seen homeland attacks since Pearl and secondly it brought their most dreaded enemy right on their doorstep making it able for them to kill Americans on their own turf.
The United States also killed more muslims within the last 7 years than we have in our entire history.  I dont think AQ wanted this too much.
I don't think Al-Qaeda really cares about that statistic.  They got what they wanted - name recognition in media, perceived power in international politics, tension on the international stage due to an obvious course of action in the retaliation for 9/11.  I don't think they made a calculated decision to bring the U.S. into Iraq, but I'm sure the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan was obvious.
youre right.  But I also dont think they expected our response to be so quick or severe.   I dont think they planned on the US invading Iraq either.  They may or may not be happy with the situation over there.
2008-01-29 21:11:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

..The war in Iraq is two different books..The first was not about terrorism, it was about Saddam and the perceived dangers he posed to the world. It was in agreement by democrats, republicans, and UN countries alike that this guy was dangerous, especially in the light of increased and more severe terrorism. It was not a GB thing, the world agreed that he needed to be removed. The European countries like Germany and France, did not agree, not because they felt he was not a danger but because of the impact on their own economies.  It was not a moral issue for these countries, it was a money thing.
oh, really, a money thing ? You mean the fact that it was considered to be an illegal war by the german administration, and various german courts played no role in that decision ? And the fact, of course, that elections were coming up ?
seriously, that money argument is getting old. If wars have proven anything, it would be that they are good for the economy. At least that's what Haliburton and Blackwater would say...

The world agreed that Saddam needed to be removed ?! What ? It's more like the USA bullied 49 other nations in following them into this pre-emptive, illegal military operation, aka the coalition of the willing. Hardly the world, if you ask me.
Also, some of the troop contributions by various countries are so laughably small, that one cannot help think that most of them traded in the lifes of their soldiers for US foreign aid and economic / political perks.

"According to a recently released report by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, the nebulous coalition represents barely a tenth of the world's population -- and many of the countries didn't join out of an idealistic commitment to the liberation of Iraq. "Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying, bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly damage the interests of the country," the report states. "Far more impressive is the list of nations that have stood up to U.S. bully tactics and stand opposed."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature … reign_aid/

Yes, I know, left-leaning IPS, but still...

lowing wrote:

The terrorists want to topple western civilization, if you do not think they will do so if you let them you are naive. I believe these radicals have more support from Islam as a whole than you or Cam, are willing to admit to.
paranoia, anybody ? "topple western civilization" ? give me a break. Even if that were the explicit intent of the radical muslims, their number is so ridiculously small, they have so little political representation, and so little military capabilities, that it is absolutely unimaginable that they could ever pose a realistic threat to the combined economic, political, and military powers of the western world.
I mean, there isn't even a union among islamic countries, for god's sake. To the contrary, most islamic nations have strong economic and political ties with the western world. Some are even close US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan.

What we are talking about here is a tiny, miniscule minority among radical muslims. And all they can do is blow up a car bomb here, or an embassy there, or maybe send a couple of airliners into the WTC. Tragic, sad, horrendous crimes, I agree, but not a threat to western societies.

Those can easily be dealt with through a combined effort of the world's police and counter-terrorism communities, without us having to force our version of freedom and democracy onto other cultures. That is my strong conviction.
Here is me just being "paranoid"...... http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD182808

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-29 21:24:11)

2008-01-29 21:15:01
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6959|Canberra, AUS
Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-01-29 21:27:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

Spark wrote:

Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
1933......Wow, get your tinfoil hats and blast doors the Nazis are coming

You actually think Germany can take over all of Europe?
2008-01-30 03:03:36
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

@lowing, #129:

your point being ?  that's just rethoric. Statements like that by radical muslims are published every 5 minutes or so. If there is one nation in the middle east which does not have the economical and military capabilities to attack any western nation, it would be Iran. And they know it.

And I am pretty sure thay also know that if one single missile was ever launched from Iranian territory at us, NATO would roll over them before they could say "UN resolution".
2008-01-30 03:30:31
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
1933......Wow, get your tinfoil hats and blast doors the Nazis are coming

You actually think Germany can take over all of Europe?
oh please. this comparison is outright appalling. Germany was initially successful because they were a well-developed nation with the economic and military capabilities to pull it off.
They also had better trained and equipped soldiers than most other european nations at the time, with the exception of maybe Breat Britain.
And yet, in spite of all of this, they still lost in the end. Why ? Because at some point, even the biggest nation reaches a point where they fight at to many fronts and face to many enemies. That's what happened to Rome, too.

Now, look at the radical muslims. No unity among them ( Shi'a, Sunni, and whatnot ). No big, powerful nation behind them. No economy or military strong enough to even cross the meditteranean sea before NATO jets bomb them into oblivion. I mean, where are they going to get all that fancy military hardware from anyway ? Modern tanks and jets, aircraft carriers, naval ships, submarines; let alone long-range transport and supply capabilities ? And the knowledge to operate it effectively ?

Apart from that, much more is going on on the diplomatic and economic fronts these days. We have the UN and NATO, and a lot of strong economic ties between western and islamic nations.

Come on now, lowing. This is not a believable scenario. You know that, you're a smart guy. We know where every islamic nation stands from a economic and military point of view. They could never pull it of.
2008-01-30 03:55:47
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Varegg wrote:

9/11 was a sucess for Al Qaida in two different ways, firstly it struck in the heart of a country that hasn't seen homeland attacks since Pearl and secondly it brought their most dreaded enemy right on their doorstep making it able for them to kill Americans on their own turf.
The United States also killed more muslims within the last 7 years than we have in our entire history.  I dont think AQ wanted this too much.
yeah, but look at what it has cost you. Financially, with regard to loss of life, and reputation. All those billions of dollars, thousands of dead coalition soldiers, with tens of thousands more wounded.

I mean, seriously, this is more than Al Quaida ever could have hoped for. The kill stats don't matter to them. For every dead Al Quaida operative, they can recruit three more. To them, those people are martyrs. And their costs to keep operations up in Iraq are laughable compared to the kind of money you burn there every month. I mean, 474 billion dollars since the campaign started.

That's just outright insane, GS. Imagine what good you could have done at home, in your own country, with that kind of money. Education, the environment, health care, poverty, border security, counter-terrorism, HUMINT, the list goes on and on.

Bottom line is, you're simply not getting enough out of this mess to justify the amount of money and lifes you are putting in there.

I don't think Al Quaida worries much about actually "winning" this conflict. Actually, I am pretty sure they know they can't. And it doesn't really matter that much anyway. No offense intended, but as long as you keep shredding dollars and sending soft targets over, they'll be just fine.
2008-01-30 04:13:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
1933......Wow, get your tinfoil hats and blast doors the Nazis are coming

You actually think Germany can take over all of Europe?
oh please. this comparison is outright appalling. Germany was initially successful because they were a well-developed nation with the economic and military capabilities to pull it off.
They also had better trained and equipped soldiers than most other european nations at the time, with the exception of maybe Breat Britain.
And yet, in spite of all of this, they still lost in the end. Why ? Because at some point, even the biggest nation reaches a point where they fight at to many fronts and face to many enemies. That's what happened to Rome, too.

Now, look at the radical muslims. No unity among them ( Shi'a, Sunni, and whatnot ). No big, powerful nation behind them. No economy or military strong enough to even cross the meditteranean sea before NATO jets bomb them into oblivion. I mean, where are they going to get all that fancy military hardware from anyway ? Modern tanks and jets, aircraft carriers, naval ships, submarines; let alone long-range transport and supply capabilities ? And the knowledge to operate it effectively ?

Apart from that, much more is going on on the diplomatic and economic fronts these days. We have the UN and NATO, and a lot of strong economic ties between western and islamic nations.

Come on now, lowing. This is not a believable scenario. You know that, you're a smart guy. We know where every islamic nation stands from a economic and military point of view. They could never pull it of.
Who woulda thought a band of farmers could or would defeat the strongest army in the world and form a new nation.

We will kick ass at a conventional war, this is not a concentional war, they play dirty. They follow no rules of war. They fight a war of sabotage. THey d onot face their enemy. These are the some very reasons the colonists won the War for Indenpendence. Add to it, GB arrogance in their belief they coud nor loose, and their inabilitiy to adapt to the emerging gorilla warfare.

Your arrogance, your disbelief that you can be harmed in any real way, your notion that their is no way you can loose will be your weak link.

Cam, preaches there is nothing wrong with giving an inch for the sake of harmony and peace. The problem with this is you get nothing in return and all of those little inches you give up eventually add up to a mile. You underestimate their will, their intelleigence, their means and their support. I think you need to wake up.

THe same thing with Nazi Germany the prevailing attitude was, who cares, until one day the world woke up to headlines of an invasion of Poland.

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-30 04:15:07)

2008-01-30 04:52:54
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

..Your arrogance, your disbelief that you can be harmed in any real way, your notion that their is no way you can loose will be your weak link.

Cam, preaches there is nothing wrong with giving an inch for the sake of harmony and peace. The problem with this is you get nothing in return and all of those little inches you give up eventually add up to a mile. You underestimate their will, their intelleigence, their means and their support. I think you need to wake up.
well, until you present a believable scenario, you'll find it hard to convince me that they pose a realistic threat. I mean, what can they ever do besides blow up a car bomb here or there ?

lowing wrote:

THe same thing with Nazi Germany the prevailing attitude was, who cares, until one day the world woke up to headlines of an invasion of Poland.
well, the difference between europe before WWII and europe today is that we are fighting terrorism. Why do I have to repeat myself ?
Maybe we're not using the same tactics as the US, and maybe you're still mad at us because we didn't join the coalition of the willing in 2003, but we are fighting terrorism, with the means we consider appropriate. That even includes sending soldiers over to Afghanistan. If that's not good enough for you, then there is nothing I can do or say to change that, I am afraid.

And why do you keep going back to Nazi germany comparisons ? Nazi Germany was one nation, united under strong leadership, economically and militarilly well developped. Radical Islam is... well... the freakin' exact opposite....

I think what you are really afraid of, is the cultural impact that muslim migration has had or may have on western nations, including the US. You are afraid they are going to erode and undermine our morals and values, and turn our liberal democracies in fundamentalist autocraties under scharia law.
2008-01-30 05:26:10
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6905|London, England

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
1933......Wow, get your tinfoil hats and blast doors the Nazis are coming

You actually think Germany can take over all of Europe?
It's almost totally different. Infact, it is.

Besides, Europe is doing something about Islamic Terrorism. Also, the UK experienced much, much worse terrorism from the Irish in the 20th Century.

Perhaps. If Radical Islam had a standing army of 1 Billion people and invaded Europe old skool style then you could have something to talk about. As it is right now, the threat to "Western Civilisation" is negligible. If anything, our governments our worse threats to the way of life than they are.
2008-01-30 20:30:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

..Your arrogance, your disbelief that you can be harmed in any real way, your notion that their is no way you can loose will be your weak link.

Cam, preaches there is nothing wrong with giving an inch for the sake of harmony and peace. The problem with this is you get nothing in return and all of those little inches you give up eventually add up to a mile. You underestimate their will, their intelleigence, their means and their support. I think you need to wake up.
well, until you present a believable scenario, you'll find it hard to convince me that they pose a realistic threat. I mean, what can they ever do besides blow up a car bomb here or there ?

lowing wrote:

THe same thing with Nazi Germany the prevailing attitude was, who cares, until one day the world woke up to headlines of an invasion of Poland.
well, the difference between europe before WWII and europe today is that we are fighting terrorism. Why do I have to repeat myself ?
Maybe we're not using the same tactics as the US, and maybe you're still mad at us because we didn't join the coalition of the willing in 2003, but we are fighting terrorism, with the means we consider appropriate. That even includes sending soldiers over to Afghanistan. If that's not good enough for you, then there is nothing I can do or say to change that, I am afraid.

And why do you keep going back to Nazi germany comparisons ? Nazi Germany was one nation, united under strong leadership, economically and militarilly well developped. Radical Islam is... well... the freakin' exact opposite....

I think what you are really afraid of, is the cultural impact that muslim migration has had or may have on western nations, including the US. You are afraid they are going to erode and undermine our morals and values, and turn our liberal democracies in fundamentalist autocraties under scharia law.
1. Ohhhhhhhh, I dunno blow up a DIRTY car bomb "here and there"????

2. Personally I do not give a shit if you are in Iraq or not. I just do not like the fact that you would all be shitting bricks if we left it. Yet you do not want to help stabilize it. I already showed you that Germany and France etc......did not want to go back to Iraq for economic reasons, not moral ones.

3. Radicalism IMO opinion is worse that Nazi germany. At least, Germany had borders and economy a presence. It could be fought and defeated. They cared about their lives and its quality.  Radical Islam has none of these things or gives a shit about anything we care about. Add to it, they are everywhere.In our countries In our schools,in our govts. They have influences in high places. Also with the bio and chemical technologies available, the presence of such things in the hands of people I just described should scare the hell out of you. All so in WW2 it took a B-29 ( or several) to deliver the payload of 1 nutjob with 1 brown paper bag. Time to wake up.
2008-01-30 20:33:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

Mek-Izzle wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wow. Get your tinfoil hats and blast doors, the terrorists are coming!

You actually think that they could destroy Western civilization?
1933......Wow, get your tinfoil hats and blast doors the Nazis are coming

You actually think Germany can take over all of Europe?
It's almost totally different. Infact, it is.

Besides, Europe is doing something about Islamic Terrorism. Also, the UK experienced much, much worse terrorism from the Irish in the 20th Century.

Perhaps. If Radical Islam had a standing army of 1 Billion people and invaded Europe old skool style then you could have something to talk about. As it is right now, the threat to "Western Civilisation" is negligible. If anything, our governments our worse threats to the way of life than they are.
You do not need an army of 1 billion to be strong, you need a few fucked up suicidal nutjobs with a WMD.

As I said Radical Islam is a far worse enemy to the US than Nazi Germany was.
2008-01-31 01:14:34
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

1. Ohhhhhhhh, I dunno blow up a DIRTY car bomb "here and there"????
are you trying to make a point ? I reckognize the threat that the possible proliferation of ABC material presents. And as far as I know, the international community is addressing this issue.

lowing wrote:

2. Personally I do not give a shit if you are in Iraq or not. I just do not like the fact that you would all be shitting bricks if we left it. Yet you do not want to help stabilize it. I already showed you that Germany and France etc......did not want to go back to Iraq for economic reasons, not moral ones.
oh come on now. As if the motivations behind the US's involvement in Iraq had been all that unselfish. Moral reasons ? laughable. With this invasion, the US is clearly addressing strategic, geo-political, and economic issues.
And you know what ? I don't give a damn. That is your right as a sovereign nation. But you're trying to come off as the only good guys here, and that's just not true.
And we don't want to help stabilize it, eh ? Wrong again. Fact is, Germany is doing a lot on different "fronts" to support the re-building of iraq.
This includes the re-building of civilian infrastructure, water supply, training of iraqui police, and even military intelligence.

some examples here:
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/a … tsheet.pdf

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/02/ … ermany.php

Turns out just about the only thing we didn't provide were troops.  Yeah, I know, it's only money, and engineering expertise, and police training. Nothing that will really help rebuild that country......./irony


lowing wrote:

3. Radicalism IMO opinion is worse that Nazi germany. At least, Germany had borders and economy a presence. It could be fought and defeated. They cared about their lives and its quality.  Radical Islam has none of these things or gives a shit about anything we care about. Add to it, they are everywhere.In our countries In our schools,in our govts. They have influences in high places. Also with the bio and chemical technologies available, the presence of such things in the hands of people I just described should scare the hell out of you. All so in WW2 it took a B-29 ( or several) to deliver the payload of 1 nutjob with 1 brown paper bag. Time to wake up.
strangely enough, you've just answered one of the most pressing questions with regard to the coalition strategy in the war on terror.
Radical islam ain't a nation, with borders, that can be fought and defeated with traditional military means. And yet, you keep trying. But the Marines aren't an anti-terrorism unit. In other words: You are using a broadsword when you should be using a scalpel.

Bottom line is, lowing, I don't think we are in disagreement wether radical islamic terrorists should be fought or not. Of course they should be fought, and europe is doing so. What we disagree on are the appropriate means to do so successfully.

I have already pointed out why I think that the US is not getting their "money's worth" ( so-to-speak ) with the current strategy in iraq, especially considering the ramifications for US domestic issues. This goes back to Gunslinger's comment about the number of muslims killed in Iraq.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

You think that europeans aren't doing enough. Fair enough. Tell me what you think we should be doing, in addition to what we already do.
I'll be glad to respond to that.
2008-02-01 20:44:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Ohhhhhhhh, I dunno blow up a DIRTY car bomb "here and there"????
are you trying to make a point ? I reckognize the threat that the possible proliferation of ABC material presents. And as far as I know, the international community is addressing this issue.

lowing wrote:

2. Personally I do not give a shit if you are in Iraq or not. I just do not like the fact that you would all be shitting bricks if we left it. Yet you do not want to help stabilize it. I already showed you that Germany and France etc......did not want to go back to Iraq for economic reasons, not moral ones.
oh come on now. As if the motivations behind the US's involvement in Iraq had been all that unselfish. Moral reasons ? laughable. With this invasion, the US is clearly addressing strategic, geo-political, and economic issues.
And you know what ? I don't give a damn. That is your right as a sovereign nation. But you're trying to come off as the only good guys here, and that's just not true.
And we don't want to help stabilize it, eh ? Wrong again. Fact is, Germany is doing a lot on different "fronts" to support the re-building of iraq.
This includes the re-building of civilian infrastructure, water supply, training of iraqui police, and even military intelligence.

some examples here:
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/a … tsheet.pdf

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/02/ … ermany.php

Turns out just about the only thing we didn't provide were troops.  Yeah, I know, it's only money, and engineering expertise, and police training. Nothing that will really help rebuild that country......./irony


lowing wrote:

3. Radicalism IMO opinion is worse that Nazi germany. At least, Germany had borders and economy a presence. It could be fought and defeated. They cared about their lives and its quality.  Radical Islam has none of these things or gives a shit about anything we care about. Add to it, they are everywhere.In our countries In our schools,in our govts. They have influences in high places. Also with the bio and chemical technologies available, the presence of such things in the hands of people I just described should scare the hell out of you. All so in WW2 it took a B-29 ( or several) to deliver the payload of 1 nutjob with 1 brown paper bag. Time to wake up.
strangely enough, you've just answered one of the most pressing questions with regard to the coalition strategy in the war on terror.
Radical islam ain't a nation, with borders, that can be fought and defeated with traditional military means. And yet, you keep trying. But the Marines aren't an anti-terrorism unit. In other words: You are using a broadsword when you should be using a scalpel.

Bottom line is, lowing, I don't think we are in disagreement wether radical islamic terrorists should be fought or not. Of course they should be fought, and europe is doing so. What we disagree on are the appropriate means to do so successfully.

I have already pointed out why I think that the US is not getting their "money's worth" ( so-to-speak ) with the current strategy in iraq, especially considering the ramifications for US domestic issues. This goes back to Gunslinger's comment about the number of muslims killed in Iraq.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

You think that europeans aren't doing enough. Fair enough. Tell me what you think we should be doing, in addition to what we already do.
I'll be glad to respond to that.
Yer right we do disagree on how this war should be fought.

You ask what should you be doing?? Well, how about the opposite of this   --------------> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02 … index.html


Any thoughts of the stratagy in Iraq might have worked better if all of the free western nations pitched in and won this thing insted of arm chair quarterbacking and spouting off when set backs arise and not saying shit when progress is made. Just a thought.
2008-02-01 22:53:41
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6959|Canberra, AUS
You 'won the thing' in two weeks.

Now what you're trying to do is rebuild a country and trying to fight off those who have very different ideas about said 'rebuilding'.

Bit of a difference, you know.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-02-02 02:53:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

Spark wrote:

You 'won the thing' in two weeks.

Now what you're trying to do is rebuild a country and trying to fight off those who have very different ideas about said 'rebuilding'.

Bit of a difference, you know.
............yeah, I think you could say that, we want to build schools, power grids, communication, sanitation, etc............they want to build bombvest factories........


very very different ideas
2008-02-02 09:22:25
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

You 'won the thing' in two weeks.

Now what you're trying to do is rebuild a country and trying to fight off those who have very different ideas about said 'rebuilding'.

Bit of a difference, you know.
............yeah, I think you could say that, we want to build schools, power grids, communication, sanitation, etc............they want to build bombvest factories........


very very different ideas
yeah, those damn iraquis, how dare they not subscribe to our version of freedom and democracy...it's a shame, really. somebody should teach them a lesson....
2008-02-02 09:56:40
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

.Yer right we do disagree on how this war should be fought.

You ask what should you be doing?? Well, how about the opposite of this   --------------> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02 … index.html


Any thoughts of the strategy in Iraq might have worked better if all of the free western nations pitched in and won this thing instead of arm chair quarterbacking and spouting off when set backs arise and not saying shit when progress is made. Just a thought.
ah, how cute, the Gates letter. Nothing beats US politicians on power trips, eh ? Gates can bite my ass. Who does he think he is telling other nations what to do ? That kind of pressure is counter-productive. But if he wanted to come across an an arrogant asshole, well, mission accomplished, I'd say.

I'll tell you what I wrote in the thread that is about this issue.

as part of NATO, we are already committing 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. That's the second biggest contingent in ISAF, after the UK.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with our contribution in Afghanistan.

Additional combat troops would require and extended parliamentary mandate, and at the moment, there is no majority for that.
Due to our history with military operations, we tend to be careful with jumping on anybody's military bandwagon these days. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

As far as our involvement in Iraq is concerned, apart from the issue about the legality of the war, there was not sufficient support for the war among the german population, and that's why it didn't happen. We take parliamentary oversight over military operations very seriously.
I'd agree that the upcoming elections played a role, too, but that's democracy.

And I hope you're not implying that Germany is not a "free western nation" for not pitching in on your strategy. That would be mean.
The fact is, lowing, only a few countries on this planet have the logistic, economical, and military capabilities to muster a meaningful deployment in Iraq. And whatever troops Germany could have provided, they would not have made a difference.

Let me quote from a RAND study on nation building from 2003:

"The population of Iraq today is nearly 25 million. That population would require 500,000 foreign troops on the ground to meet a standard of 20 troops per thousand residents. This number is more than three times the number of foreign troops now deployed to Iraq (see figure). For a sustainable stabilization force on a 24-month rotation cycle, the international community would need to draw on a troop base of 2.5 million troops. Such numbers are clearly not feasible and emphasize the need for the rapid creation of indigenous security forces even while foreign troops continue to be deployed. The extremely low force ratio for Afghanistan, a country with a population even larger than that of Iraq, shows the implausibility of current stabilization efforts by external forces."

source: http://www.rand.org/publications/randre … urden.html

nation-building is fine and well, you know. The idea of spreading our version of freedom and democracy around the globe is a valuable one, and commendable. But it does not work every time and under any circumstances. You can't fix a country with bullets.
2008-02-02 10:08:09
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7046

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


The United States also killed more muslims within the last 7 years than we have in our entire history.  I dont think AQ wanted this too much.
I don't think Al-Qaeda really cares about that statistic.  They got what they wanted - name recognition in media, perceived power in international politics, tension on the international stage due to an obvious course of action in the retaliation for 9/11.  I don't think they made a calculated decision to bring the U.S. into Iraq, but I'm sure the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan was obvious.
youre right.  But I also dont think they expected our response to be so quick or severe.   I dont think they planned on the US invading Iraq either.  They may or may not be happy with the situation over there.
^^^^^^^^
One of the smartest things said in this thread.  So smart it gets ignored and is not part of the massive quote trees.
2008-02-02 10:16:49
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

I did, at least partly. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1856963

me wrote:

..
I don't think Al Quaida worries much about actually "winning" this conflict. Actually, I am pretty sure they know they can't. And it doesn't really matter that much anyway. No offense intended, but as long as you keep shredding dollars and sending soft targets over, they'll be just fine.
2008-02-02 22:33:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

.Yer right we do disagree on how this war should be fought.

You ask what should you be doing?? Well, how about the opposite of this   --------------> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02 … index.html


Any thoughts of the strategy in Iraq might have worked better if all of the free western nations pitched in and won this thing instead of arm chair quarterbacking and spouting off when set backs arise and not saying shit when progress is made. Just a thought.
ah, how cute, the Gates letter. Nothing beats US politicians on power trips, eh ? Gates can bite my ass. Who does he think he is telling other nations what to do ? That kind of pressure is counter-productive. But if he wanted to come across an an arrogant asshole, well, mission accomplished, I'd say.

I'll tell you what I wrote in the thread that is about this issue.

as part of NATO, we are already committing 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. That's the second biggest contingent in ISAF, after the UK.
So I don't think there is anything wrong with our contribution in Afghanistan.

Additional combat troops would require and extended parliamentary mandate, and at the moment, there is no majority for that.
Due to our history with military operations, we tend to be careful with jumping on anybody's military bandwagon these days. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

As far as our involvement in Iraq is concerned, apart from the issue about the legality of the war, there was not sufficient support for the war among the german population, and that's why it didn't happen. We take parliamentary oversight over military operations very seriously.
I'd agree that the upcoming elections played a role, too, but that's democracy.

And I hope you're not implying that Germany is not a "free western nation" for not pitching in on your strategy. That would be mean.
The fact is, lowing, only a few countries on this planet have the logistic, economical, and military capabilities to muster a meaningful deployment in Iraq. And whatever troops Germany could have provided, they would not have made a difference.

Let me quote from a RAND study on nation building from 2003:

"The population of Iraq today is nearly 25 million. That population would require 500,000 foreign troops on the ground to meet a standard of 20 troops per thousand residents. This number is more than three times the number of foreign troops now deployed to Iraq (see figure). For a sustainable stabilization force on a 24-month rotation cycle, the international community would need to draw on a troop base of 2.5 million troops. Such numbers are clearly not feasible and emphasize the need for the rapid creation of indigenous security forces even while foreign troops continue to be deployed. The extremely low force ratio for Afghanistan, a country with a population even larger than that of Iraq, shows the implausibility of current stabilization efforts by external forces."

source: http://www.rand.org/publications/randre … urden.html

nation-building is fine and well, you know. The idea of spreading our version of freedom and democracy around the globe is a valuable one, and commendable. But it does not work every time and under any circumstances. You can't fix a country with bullets.
Ok, I understand now, it is acceptable in Germany, to fight part of a war half ass in one country and not at all everywhere else the war is being fought. Good strategy. Appreciate the help.

We do not want ot fix the country with bullets, We are not the ones killing all of Iraqis and blowing shit up. Our efforts are undermined and you sit back and watch it happen, Tell me how this is serving innicent people.
2008-02-03 08:53:32
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7125|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

Ok, I understand now, it is acceptable in Germany, to fight part of a war half ass in one country and not at all everywhere else the war is being fought. Good strategy. Appreciate the help.
get off you high horse. As I said, we take parliamentary oversight very serious in Germany, and because of our history with regard to military "operations" abroad ( of which, by the way, a lot of american and british forum members keep reminding us, in almost any discussion ) we have very specific and strict legislation on the use of military force.
I would have thought that as someone who is so destined to promote the values of democracy around the world, you would show a little more respect for that democratic process in other countries. Or is democracy only good when it serves US interests ?

As I said, we are doing what our laws will allow us to do. If that is too complex to fit in your black and white world, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do or say to convince you that we are on your side. Because we are on your side, believe it or not. But you'll have to allow us to do it on our own terms. After all, isn't that what the US do all the f****** time ?

lowing wrote:

We do not want to fix the country with bullets, We are not the ones killing all of Iraqis and blowing shit up. Our efforts are undermined and you sit back and watch it happen, Tell me how this is serving innocent people.
With all due respect, the reason these "innocent people" are in the situation they are in now in the first place, is because you invaded their freakin' country. On your own account. Cause and effect, lowing. Your invasion prepared the ground for islamic extremists and terrorists from all over the middle east to come to iraq and make it their battlefield. Are you sure you are serving these people's interests ?

And as I said previously, there is serious doubt wether you are getting enough out of it, compared to what you put in.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1856963

I don't have a time machine and I can't look into the future. Maybe, in ten or fifteen years time, we will look back at this and say, "yeah, it was the right decision, Iraq is peaceful now". Maybe then we will know if it was worth those billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lifes.
And you know what, if that should ever happen, I'll be the first to shake your hand, buy you a beer, and admit that I was wrong.

Until then, you'll have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with the US strategy.
2008-02-03 13:17:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6935|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, I understand now, it is acceptable in Germany, to fight part of a war half ass in one country and not at all everywhere else the war is being fought. Good strategy. Appreciate the help.
get off you high horse. As I said, we take parliamentary oversight very serious in Germany, and because of our history with regard to military "operations" abroad ( of which, by the way, a lot of american and british forum members keep reminding us, in almost any discussion ) we have very specific and strict legislation on the use of military force.
I would have thought that as someone who is so destined to promote the values of democracy around the world, you would show a little more respect for that democratic process in other countries. Or is democracy only good when it serves US interests ?

As I said, we are doing what our laws will allow us to do. If that is too complex to fit in your black and white world, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do or say to convince you that we are on your side. Because we are on your side, believe it or not. But you'll have to allow us to do it on our own terms. After all, isn't that what the US do all the f****** time ?

lowing wrote:

We do not want to fix the country with bullets, We are not the ones killing all of Iraqis and blowing shit up. Our efforts are undermined and you sit back and watch it happen, Tell me how this is serving innocent people.
With all due respect, the reason these "innocent people" are in the situation they are in now in the first place, is because you invaded their freakin' country. On your own account. Cause and effect, lowing. Your invasion prepared the ground for islamic extremists and terrorists from all over the middle east to come to iraq and make it their battlefield. Are you sure you are serving these people's interests ?

And as I said previously, there is serious doubt wether you are getting enough out of it, compared to what you put in.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1856963

I don't have a time machine and I can't look into the future. Maybe, in ten or fifteen years time, we will look back at this and say, "yeah, it was the right decision, Iraq is peaceful now". Maybe then we will know if it was worth those billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lifes.
And you know what, if that should ever happen, I'll be the first to shake your hand, buy you a beer, and admit that I was wrong.

Until then, you'll have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with the US strategy.
1. Well at least you are not going to deny your efforts are half ass in Afghanistan and not at all in the rest of the war. I couldn't care less what your parliment allows.

2. We went back to Iraq to enforce the resolutions that had been ignored and failed to get resolveds diplomaticly for 10 years. It had nothing to do with the current radical Islamic situation. The potential for Saddam to use his defiance of the resolutions to proceed with his WMD programs more than warranted to continue the war.

You need to seporate the time lines. Saddam and the current war on terror did collide but were 2 seporate campaigns before Saddam fell. As such, you need to recognize that Iraq is a front on the war on terror and get involved.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard