BF2S Forums How long?

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

BeerzGod wrote:

Bottom line is that there WILL be another horrendous terrorist attack on American soil sooner or later, and I'm not sure why anyone is arguing the fact that it will or will not happen. You all know it will. It doesn't matter who is in the oval office or not. It doesn't matter if there is a Patriot Act or not, etc. There's nothing an average citizen can do about it so just live your life. I think the crack-down on terroism has stopped a lot of would-be attacks but nobody will ever defeat terrorism.

And those of you arguing that you CAN defeat your enemy with military strength alone are sorely mistaken. Sure, it worked wonders in Japan, but it doesn't work against an enemy that WANTS to die. This enemy believes they party with 70 virgins when they die and they're not afraid to take as many people with them when they go down. Fighting without fear of death is a truely powerful thing in war... it doesn't matter if they they're using age-old weapons or homemade explosives. How do you defeat an enemy so willing to die?

By ALL countries not offering safe harbor for the terrorists, their training camps, or their finances. All countries that do get sanctioned out the ass. I mean real sanctions, not the bullshit the UN calls sanctions.

Make it where helping terrorists just ain't worth the burdon  your country will face..

Sometimes it's not that simple.  Some countries governments are corrupt with terrorists, take Pakistan for example.  I believe the main reason they haven't cracked down on the major terrorist cells bordering Afgahnistan is because the president would most likely lose control of the country.

Sometimes you can't just do what you think is right.  Lots of times what seems like the right thing to do ends up causing more harm than good.  (Israel?)

Then hurt Pakistan, complete isolation from the rest of the world. Seems to have worked for Libya.

Spearhead wrote:

Thousands of people will die as a result of that, lowing.  There are other ways of combatting terrorism.  Going after every nation in the world that "harbors" terrorists would include going after 50 other countries.  It just isn't physically possible.

Didn't say go after them I said isolate them. There is nothing that says the free world is obligated to support or prop up countries that we do not agree with. Fight the terrorists in your countries or face isolation from the world. Pretty simple I think. The west is needed a lot more than it needs Pakistan.

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Thousands of people will die as a result of that, lowing.  There are other ways of combatting terrorism.  Going after every nation in the world that "harbors" terrorists would include going after 50 other countries.  It just isn't physically possible.

Didn't say go after them I said isolate them. There is nothing that says the free world is obligated to support or prop up countries that we do not agree with. Fight the terrorists in your countries or face isolation from the world. Pretty simple I think. The west is needed a lot more than it needs Pakistan.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.  But eitherway, isolation will only make matters worse for the Pakistanis.  What really needs to happen is to have all NATO countries join together and say "No more of this BS", and help the Pakistanis regain control.  But that might not work, and even if it might, no other countries would be willing to help us.

But yeah I guess I agree with you

The problem with Pakistan is that the fanatics are more representative of the average Pakistani than Musharraf is.

Usmarine mentioned somewhere here that India will likely eventually have to nuke Pakistan, and at this point, I would agree.  Screw Iran; Pakistan is who we should be worried about.

So following the Isolation mantra -- how will this work out considering our close relationship with Saudi Arabia?

I don't know about you , but believe it or not the country which helped created terrorist like those that perpetrated 9/11 is simply still making more extremist via funneling -- MONEY -- into Sunni extremist as a response to the growing fear of a dominant Iran (Shia majority) could bring about another Islamic revolution that was experienced in Iran (1979). So essentially right now the US is playing a very precarious game in this region. Check out this article by Samuel Hersh --->Informative

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-03-20 19:34:39)

Fen321 wrote:

So following the Isolation mantra -- how will this work out considering our close relationship with Saudi Arabia?

I don't know about you , but believe it or not the country which helped created terrorist like those that perpetrated 9/11 is simply still making more extremist via funneling -- MONEY -- into Sunni extremist as a response to the growing fear of a dominant Iran (Shia majority) could bring about another Islamic revolution that was experienced in Iran (1979). So essentially right now the US is playing a very precarious game in this region. Check out this article by Samuel Hersh --->Informative

Kinda like the support Hezbollah gets from Iran in disrupting the Pro-Saudi government in Lebanon. Iran is playing a very dangerous game messing with the Saudi's now. Inflation is up as much as 50 percent and the unemployment rate is around 11 in Iran. Throw some sanctions on top along with the fact it cost Iran much more money to get thier oil out of the ground. You can see how the Saudi's could floor an already struggling economy in Iran by simply turning up oil production. Iran has requested emergency OPEC meetings in which the Saudi's refused to attend in the past. I have read recently that OPEC will adopt new plans if the price of oil drops again though.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-20 19:49:54)

lowing wrote:

How long do you think it will be, after the election of a democratic president, to the next terrorist attack in the US.

Or do you think once we retreat from Iraq and dissolve the Patriot Act, and put terrorists rights as the leading concern of our nation, that we will all live in peace?

I give it 1.5 years.

I give it 1 year until those wacky Dems sell our country to China, Make Osama Bin Laden A U.S. Citizen, allow every single person to go on welfare for the heck of it, Allow legal bombings of federal buildings, and the raping of small children.

Unless the Conservatives pull a victory, his all mighty and true one god thy LORD willing.  but they will then Null the entire Bill of rights, declare war on every country except maybe the Vatican, and slaughter women and children in every country they vote to invade.

LOL, everyone seems to take the unbenificial dumb shit EACH PARTY says and does, and portray those actions like it's either party's conscious willing political agenda to completely fuck things up. 

I would just love for once to see a liberal say, "Well, the conservatives are doing XXXX to make the war go better".  Or A conservative say "well, the liberals do make a point when they say this war isn't improving and XXXX things need to really change".

Maybe, if the finger pointing would fucking stop in D.C. they might find a little bit of middle ground where, I don't know, some results might come from?

Fen321 wrote:

hehe apparently our administration trusts the Saudis considering our frequent "disclosed" and "undisclosed" trips there....hell they are doing our dirty work .

......we want to help the Moderate Sunni states................we isolate the extremist .......but the highest order of hypocrisy his that we label Saudi Arabia one of those moderate states and Egypt....Doh!



Oh yeah for sure. The economic battle between the two states comes to no surprise considering the fear Saudi Arabia has of Iran's 400,000 standing army in comparison to its 70,000ish. I'm just really curious how all of this will pan out considering the shared interest in Iraq's security.

I agree. They still refuse to welcome change and recognize womens rights. Not to mention the they tolerate Human trafficking. Moderate?

Turquoise wrote:

devildogfo wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Oh I'm sorry, is it our president who's made terrorists hate us even MORE by going into a country that didn't attack us first? Is it our president that hasn't been able to defeat militants with 60 year old AK-47's and improvised explosives with our powerful military? If you think we're "safer" under this current administration, think again. I'm incredibly surprised nothing's happened yet. If a terrorist wanted, he could easily get a nuke into this country. I think it's all a matter of time until we do infact get "America's Hiroshima", no matter who the president is, republican, democrat, or anything.

You're too busy blaming liberals for everything anyways, it doesn't even seem like you care about the countries protection, just who you want in office.

If you're referring to bush's patriot act, it's only taken away liberties of people. As Ben Franklin said it best: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'

This post reveal just how uninformed you are regarding DOD and HS operations to combat the global war on terror.

I'll put it this way...  Invading Iraq hasn't made us safer.  Invading Afghanistan was a good thing though.

Continuing the war in Iraq wasn't meant to "make us safer" in the context you say it. It was meant to take down a tyrant that spent 10 years ignoring the UN resolutions that put the war on hold. He refuse to keep his word, the war machine rolled again. nothing more nothing less, until after he was ousted.

You guys really need to stop talking about Iraq as if we just woke up one morning, bored, with nothing better to do than kick Iraq's ass. There was a prelude to restarting the war and it was 10 years in the making.

Last edited by lowing (2007-03-20 21:25:48)

Turquoise wrote:

As I've asked before, what's the point of enforcing a treaty for an organization uninterested in seeing it enforced?

It was in that regions and the worlds best interests that that fucker was removed. The UN concidered him a threat as well as the US. The US had to act where the UN, with their personal relationships with Iraq on the line, failed.

If it was just in '91 to force him into compliance. Finishing the job was equally as just when he failed to continue to do so.

Last edited by lowing (2007-03-20 21:29:41)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As I've asked before, what's the point of enforcing a treaty for an organization uninterested in seeing it enforced?

It was in that regions and the worlds best interests that that fucker was removed. The UN concidered him a threat as well as the US. The US had to act where the UN, with their personal relationships with Iraq on the line, failed.

If it was just in '91 to force him into compliance. Finishing the job was equally as just when he failed to continue to do so.

I wouldn't say removing Saddam was in the interests of the region actually...  Look at the chaos that has spread as a result of removing him.  I'd argue the Middle East was more stable with Saddam in power, despite the atrocities.

Being more stable for Saddam to rape and murder, by the thousands, is not quite the stability you should be looking for.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I wouldn't say removing Saddam was in the interests of the region actually...  Look at the chaos that has spread as a result of removing him.  I'd argue the Middle East was more stable with Saddam in power, despite the atrocities.

Being more stable for Saddam to rape and murder, by the thousands, is not quite the stability you should be looking for.

If it makes the oil market more stable, I'd say it is.

I know that's callous, but you choose your battles.  If human rights were the issue here, we never would have helped him into power in the first place.

I can't argue that. But I do believe if the US really wanted the oil from the ME we would have it already, since we have had plenty of chances to take it in the past 100 or so years.