Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2008-11-16 09:35:21
NgoDamWei
Member
+7|5968|Western North Carolina
for revealing another "DOH ! we couldn't have fingered it out for ourselves" story.

How many coin flips did it take between you, the AP and NYT to have the priviledge to make such startling revelations ?

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22051495/preps for cp ilk lackey rhetoric)

Last edited by NgoDamWei (2008-11-16 09:52:14)

2008-11-16 09:44:56
S3v3N
lolwut?
+685|6823|Montucky
okay...
2008-11-16 10:06:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina
I think the general point is that our deal with Pakistan could have easily been figured out by reading between the lines of current events.

We pretend we don't have a deal, while Pakistan bitches.

As far as Pakistan goes, fuck them.  If a large portion of their country wasn't being controlled by extremists and tribal cave men, we wouldn't have to bomb them.
2008-11-16 10:17:47
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6833|Global Command
To need a license to post threads.
2008-11-16 11:21:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

Turquoise wrote:

If a large portion of their country wasn't being controlled by extremists and tribal cave men, we wouldn't have to bomb them.
The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

https://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-world/map-of-the-world.jpg
2008-11-16 12:20:18
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6758|The Twilight Zone

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If a large portion of their country wasn't being controlled by extremists and tribal cave men, we wouldn't have to bomb them.
The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-w … -world.jpg
Didn't know Greenland was part of Denmark. Thanks for posting Cam
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-11-16 12:33:12
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6925|London, England

S3v3N wrote:

okay...
How the fuck is "wat" spam but this isn't?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Do you smoke crack before you post?

Or, What the hell are you talking about?
Or this.

ATG wrote:

To need a license to post threads.
Or this.

ghettoperson wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Do you smoke crack before you post?

Or, What the hell are you talking about?
Or this.

Gimme a break....
2008-11-16 12:53:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If a large portion of their country wasn't being controlled by extremists and tribal cave men, we wouldn't have to bomb them.
The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-w … -world.jpg
What exactly does distance have to do with anything?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-16 14:30:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If a large portion of their country wasn't being controlled by extremists and tribal cave men, we wouldn't have to bomb them.
The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-w … -world.jpg
What exactly does distance have to do with anything?
Guys armed with RPGs, 'boxcutters' and mobile phones living in caves in countries several thousands of miles away can usually be dealt with by cheaper means, both in terms of money and blood. I don't think you'll exactly see them planning a D-Day landing on Delaware Beach anytime soon. Look after your airports and the handful of nutters that decide to make the 'trip of a lifetime' can be detained upon entry...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-16 14:31:10)

2008-11-16 14:45:14
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-w … -world.jpg
What exactly does distance have to do with anything?
Guys armed with RPGs, 'boxcutters' and mobile phones living in caves in countries several thousands of miles away can usually be dealt with by cheaper means, both in terms of money and blood. I don't think you'll exactly see them planning a D-Day landing on Delaware Beach anytime soon. Look after your airports and the handful of nutters that decide to make the 'trip of a lifetime' can be detained upon entry...
/thread war on terror.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-16 14:45:36)

2008-11-16 14:53:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The question could be asked: "Why bother?".

Cost and futility aside, observe the distance between USA and Afghanistan/Pakistan:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-the-w … -world.jpg
What exactly does distance have to do with anything?
Guys armed with RPGs, 'boxcutters' and mobile phones living in caves in countries several thousands of miles away can usually be dealt with by cheaper means, both in terms of money and blood. I don't think you'll exactly see them planning a D-Day landing on Delaware Beach anytime soon. Look after your airports and the handful of nutters that decide to make the 'trip of a lifetime' can be detained upon entry...
Or kill them where they are, deny them safe haven to continue their planning and training.

In warfare, you don't sit and wait for the adversary to come to you (normally).

Following your logic, D-Day should never have happened, no bombing of Germany should ever have happened, no strikes against the Japanese should ever have happened...

Do you see how utterly flawed your view is now?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-16 15:25:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

FEOS wrote:

Or kill them where they are, deny them safe haven to continue their planning and training.
You don't need to engage in the futile nonsense currently being engaged in to do that. I thought the west had laser-guided precision missiles and satellite imagery? What is currently being engaged in is perpetual counter-productive bullshit. It propagates the truth/myth (whichever) that the west is acting in an imperialistic fashion and is trying to destroy the identity of others. That propagation only fuels disgruntlement towards the west and the benefit in engaging in these actions outweighs the costs: financial, sanguine and in 'hearts and minds' terms.

FEOS wrote:

In warfare, you don't sit and wait for the adversary to come to you (normally).
You're right. You monitor them and you prepare yourself, especially when you are safe in the knowledge that you are and always will be vastly militarily superior to them and they are sufficiently far from your homeland to pose you any existential or meaningful threat that you couldn't combat with ease should the need arise.

FEOS wrote:

Following your logic, D-Day should never have happened, no bombing of Germany should ever have happened, no strikes against the Japanese should ever have happened...
D-Day was a response, asked for by Stalin and Churchill, to the Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa and numerous other military endeavours on the part of the highly modern conventional military forces of Italy and Germany - who sought to snuff out the existence of all around them through brazen imperialism. They also had the machinery of the state behind them and the respective despots had substantial popularity. They could project their military might with frightening and furious speed and force. Britain and Russia fought battles of existence.

Now for some stats:

U.S.A - 300m citizens, most advanced military on earth, 2,200+ nuclear warheads (dispatchable across continents), richest country on earth (I think they still are anyway), ability to project military power (unparalleled), active military: 1.44m personnel, rserve: 0.85m personnel, countless destroyers, carriers, cruisers, submarines, bombers, fighters, artillery pieces.

Al Qaeda/Taliban - infinitesimally small membership as compared against the military of the US (let alone the west), weapons: makeshift bombs, RPGs, kalashnikovs, crude and basic aquatic vehicles, no aircraft. Popularity across the Middle East: not widespread. Ability to project power internationally: limited, random spaced out acts that can be perpetrated - by anyone - through the purchase of fertiliser at the local garden store and a couple of downloaded documents from the internet. 

Are you telling me that Al Qaeda - a completely decentralised 'ethos' rather than an 'organisation' - is in anyway similar to the conventional armed forces of the state that Hitler openly built up to the pinnacle of modern engineering in the space of 10 or so years?

Are you telling me that you envisage someday that Al Qaeda - a bunch of disparate anarchists with no major popular appeal - will control entire nations and have tanks rolling over borders and bombers flying over foreign airspace?

Are you telling me that even if they did so that they would pose an existential or meaningful threat to any western nation? Are you saying that we couldn't pound that nation into the ground in a matter of months, levelling it with our advanced ordinance and military prowess?

Are you for real here? The 1933 excuse for wanton and pointless bloodlust does not apply anymore, in this case anyway, since the west attained supreme military power and a nuclear arsenal as far as the eye can see.

FEOS wrote:

Do you see how utterly flawed your view is now?
No. See above.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-16 15:38:05)

2008-11-16 16:24:17
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7019|US
Cam, you just made a wonderful analysis of why AQ should not try to fight a conventional war.  The basic problem for the US is AQ already figured that out!  A handful of extremists, a few hundred thousand dollars,  and several years of preparation are all they needed to do billions of dollars of damage, kill nearly 3,000 people, and initiate a response that has killed thousands of Americans and cost over 1 trillion dollars.  Quite a return on their investment, no?

AQ does not want to invade (at least in the short term).  They want to destroy the power and lifestyle of the United States.  They don't need to, nor should they fight a conventional war to do this.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-11-16 16:25:29)

2008-11-16 16:46:27
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

RAIMIUS wrote:

Cam, you just made a wonderful analysis of why AQ should not try to fight a conventional war.  The basic problem for the US is AQ already figured that out!  A handful of extremists, a few hundred thousand dollars,  and several years of preparation are all they needed to do billions of dollars of damage, kill nearly 3,000 people, and initiate a response that has killed thousands of Americans and cost over 1 trillion dollars.  Quite a return on their investment, no?

AQ does not want to invade (at least in the short term).  They want to destroy the power and lifestyle of the United States.  They don't need to, nor should they fight a conventional war to do this.
It is an intelligent tactic. Their cause may seem mindless but they have succeeded in driving a wedge between peoples with the west playing right into their hands. No modern nation has yet come up with an effective manner of combating this kind of warfare, and this type of warfare has been around for centuries. I think we're smart enough to come up with something - we just need to go back to the drawing board and try and outsmart them rather than falling for the illusion that macho might will 'show them what for'. The big problem is that it is impossible to 'crush an idea'. We need to find a way of letting that silly idea run its course somehow.
2008-11-16 17:36:11
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or kill them where they are, deny them safe haven to continue their planning and training.
You don't need to engage in the futile nonsense currently being engaged in to do that. I thought the west had laser-guided precision missiles and satellite imagery? What is currently being engaged in is perpetual counter-productive bullshit. It propagates the truth/myth (whichever) that the west is acting in an imperialistic fashion and is trying to destroy the identity of others. That propagation only fuels disgruntlement towards the west and the benefit in engaging in these actions outweighs the costs: financial, sanguine and in 'hearts and minds' terms.
Oh...have we installed governments run by Americans?

Didn't think so.

And just how do you, with all your worldly (and military) experience, propose that it is done?

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

In warfare, you don't sit and wait for the adversary to come to you (normally).
You're right. You monitor them and you prepare yourself, especially when you are safe in the knowledge that you are and always will be vastly militarily superior to them and they are sufficiently far from your homeland to pose you any existential or meaningful threat that you couldn't combat with ease should the need arise.
Hmmm...we did that with Al Qaeda. Didn't work so well, did it?

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Following your logic, D-Day should never have happened, no bombing of Germany should ever have happened, no strikes against the Japanese should ever have happened...
D-Day was a response, asked for by Stalin and Churchill, to the Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa and numerous other military endeavours on the part of the highly modern conventional military forces of Italy and Germany - who sought to snuff out the existence of all around them through brazen imperialism. They also had the machinery of the state behind them and the respective despots had substantial popularity. They could project their military might with frightening and furious speed and force. Britain and Russia fought battles of existence.
Oh, but it doesn't matter if it's in response to something. Or does it? You've changed your logic too much for me to keep track.

Or is it OK if it's in response to an attack, but only if the attack is from a nation-state, or only if the attack is not against the US?

CameronPoe wrote:

Now for some stats:

U.S.A - 300m citizens, most advanced military on earth, 2,200+ nuclear warheads (dispatchable across continents), richest country on earth (I think they still are anyway), ability to project military power (unparalleled), active military: 1.44m personnel, rserve: 0.85m personnel, countless destroyers, carriers, cruisers, submarines, bombers, fighters, artillery pieces.

Al Qaeda/Taliban - infinitesimally small membership as compared against the military of the US (let alone the west), weapons: makeshift bombs, RPGs, kalashnikovs, crude and basic aquatic vehicles, no aircraft. Popularity across the Middle East: not widespread. Ability to project power internationally: limited, random spaced out acts that can be perpetrated - by anyone - through the purchase of fertiliser at the local garden store and a couple of downloaded documents from the internet. 

Are you telling me that Al Qaeda - a completely decentralised 'ethos' rather than an 'organisation' - is in anyway similar to the conventional armed forces of the state that Hitler openly built up to the pinnacle of modern engineering in the space of 10 or so years?

Are you telling me that you envisage someday that Al Qaeda - a bunch of disparate anarchists with no major popular appeal - will control entire nations and have tanks rolling over borders and bombers flying over foreign airspace?

Are you telling me that even if they did so that they would pose an existential or meaningful threat to any western nation? Are you saying that we couldn't pound that nation into the ground in a matter of months, levelling it with our advanced ordinance and military prowess?

Are you for real here? The 1933 excuse for wanton and pointless bloodlust does not apply anymore, in this case anyway, since the west attained supreme military power and a nuclear arsenal as far as the eye can see.
The nature of the threat is irrelevant to use your logic. One can only stay within one's borders, defending one's homeland from within those borders. Distance to the threat is critical to your view. The source of the threat must be right next door or internal for one to be "allowed" to do something about that threat. None of those stats, nor the difference in the nature of the threats that I pointed out to show the flaw in your argument changes the flaw.

Of course, you could always just change your argument.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Do you see how utterly flawed your view is now?
No. See above.
Yes. Look again.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-17 00:09:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Or kill them where they are, deny them safe haven to continue their planning and training.
Thats your solution to everything, kill, kill, kill, bomb, bomb, bomb - and you wonder where AQ get their ideas from.

Anyone who thinks bombing Pakistan is the solution should read this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 793398.ece

'He also learnt that nothing interfered with the Pathan code of honour, which is based on three principles: hospitality, protection and retaliation. “A man who has killed the brother of another need only go to his house to be treated as an honoured guest,” he said. It is this tradition of providing refuge even to those who have committed a crime that may have led Osama Bin Laden to choose the area as a hiding place. '

The more you kill the more enemies you make, and the Taliban weren't your enemy to start with, it was AQ.
Good luck idiots.
Fuck Israel
2008-11-17 02:30:24
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

FEOS wrote:

Oh...have we installed governments run by Americans?

Didn't think so.
No but in the case of Iraq for instance the US 'guided' the writing of their constitution and key laws. The US also attempted at putting forward 'their own boys' - like Ahmed Chalabi, who turned out to be a mistake, and Hamid Karzai - big man with the CIA. Of course with the financial backing of the US and the chaotic splintered nature of Afghan tribalism how would anyone other than Karzai win the election...

FEOS wrote:

And just how do you, with all your worldly (and military) experience, propose that it is done?
Well first off I was raised in Co. Donegal on the border of an active warzone involving a conventional military taking on a guerrilla army in asymetric warfare. I know how it isn't done: through what is happening right now (not least because it's a needless perpetual war of attrition). I know that every act committed by the British army strengthened the resolve of Republicans. I know that the very presence of the British army in the six counties was a call to arms for Irish people irrespective of how futile it seemed to take on a massive military power. I know that ever time the Brits committed a Bloody Sunday or Guildford Four it was like placing a massive advertisement in the newspapers to join the IRA. I know that every time a Republican fell three more stepped in to take his place. I know that British intervention perpetuated the divide. I know that internment without trial and denying PoW rights to the IRA (leading to the death by starvation of 10 people before the Brits gave in) produced a massive groundswell of support for the IRA (Bobby Sands, the first hunger striker was elected MP for Fermanagh 10 days before his death). I know that for as long as the British army remained on Irish soil there were men and women who would stop at nothing to commit themselves to violent retribution against said soldiers no matter what the personal cost. Today the last remnants of the British army have left/are leaving the six counties. All army outposts have been removed/are being removed. The IRA, an army the Brits have conceded they were incapable of defeating, forced the British government to the negotiating table and now the ex-quartermaster general is Minister for Education, the Republic has a role in the governance of the six counties and all citizens of the six counties enjoy equal rights (unlike before).

No matter how many bullets and bombs you throw at the Taliban or Al Qaeda you will never, repeat never, defeat them. Period. You need to be smarter than that.

FEOS wrote:

Hmmm...we did that with Al Qaeda. Didn't work so well, did it?
Incompetence is annoying like that. A report on Bush's desk outlining Al Qaeda's plans and US airport 'security' allow people onto planes with sharp implements. It ain't fucking rocket science.

FEOS wrote:

Oh, but it doesn't matter if it's in response to something. Or does it? You've changed your logic too much for me to keep track.
No you have missed the point. The Al Qaeda conflict is nothing like WWII or the period beforehand. If another sovereign nation decides to launch an invasion of your nation, or threatens one and seems intent on doing so, then you respond. Al Qaeda != any of that.

FEOS wrote:

Or is it OK if it's in response to an attack, but only if the attack is from a nation-state, or only if the attack is not against the US?
Now you're just getting preposterous FEOS. I apply my principles to all. Think otherwise if you like but it makes having a discussion/debate/argument between us pointless.


FEOS wrote:

The nature of the threat is irrelevant to use your logic. One can only stay within one's borders, defending one's homeland from within those borders. Distance to the threat is critical to your view. The source of the threat must be right next door or internal for one to be "allowed" to do something about that threat. None of those stats, nor the difference in the nature of the threats that I pointed out to show the flaw in your argument changes the flaw.

Of course, you could always just change your argument.
Thank you for noticing that the stats are kind of irrelevant. Why? Because YOU SHOULDN'T BE FIGHTING AL QAEDA WITH CONVENTIONAL MILITARY MEANS. It's a waste of US manpower, blood and money. Infiltration, espionage and improved domestic security is what is required. Or perhaps you can demonstrate to me how what the US military are currently engaged in prevents someone from entering the US, buying some fertilizer, downloading some documents from the internet and walking into the nearest mall and blowing it up?
2008-11-17 04:14:16
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

Campoe wrote:

internment without trial and denying PoW rights to the IRA
But according to FEOS' arguments us Brits were entitled to do whatever we liked as they were unlawful combatants.
No laws applied.
Fuck Israel
2008-11-17 08:49:49
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6595|Éire

CameronPoe wrote:

No matter how many bullets and bombs you throw at the Taliban or Al Qaeda you will never, repeat never, defeat them. Period. You need to be smarter than that.
QFT. The worst mistake Bush ever made was to declare the battle against Al Qaeda to be an actual war... you're in it for the long haul now boys.
2008-11-17 18:58:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh...have we installed governments run by Americans?

Didn't think so.
No but in the case of Iraq for instance the US 'guided' the writing of their constitution and key laws. The US also attempted at putting forward 'their own boys' - like Ahmed Chalabi, who turned out to be a mistake, and Hamid Karzai - big man with the CIA. Of course with the financial backing of the US and the chaotic splintered nature of Afghan tribalism how would anyone other than Karzai win the election...
Actually, there are quite a few candidates in Afghanistan with a better than even chance of being elected.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And just how do you, with all your worldly (and military) experience, propose that it is done?
No matter how many bullets and bombs you throw at the Taliban or Al Qaeda you will never, repeat never, defeat them. Period. You need to be smarter than that.
For you to think that the AQ situation is the same as the N. Ireland situation is to ignore vast cultural differences and different objectives for each group.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hmmm...we did that with Al Qaeda. Didn't work so well, did it?
Incompetence is annoying like that. A report on Bush's desk outlining Al Qaeda's plans and US airport 'security' allow people onto planes with sharp implements. It ain't fucking rocket science.
But you have to wait until the other side acts, according to your logic. That "incompetence" was just the reality of your theory.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh, but it doesn't matter if it's in response to something. Or does it? You've changed your logic too much for me to keep track.
No you have missed the point. The Al Qaeda conflict is nothing like WWII or the period beforehand. If another sovereign nation decides to launch an invasion of your nation, or threatens one and seems intent on doing so, then you respond. Al Qaeda != any of that.
But you said the AQ conflict was the same as the NI conflict...which involved invasion and occupation. But that's different...but it's the same. Your argument is contradicting itself.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or is it OK if it's in response to an attack, but only if the attack is from a nation-state, or only if the attack is not against the US?
Now you're just getting preposterous FEOS. I apply my principles to all. Think otherwise if you like but it makes having a discussion/debate/argument between us pointless.
I'm simply applying your principles to all. And you think it's preposterous. Should tell you something about your principles on this topic.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The nature of the threat is irrelevant to use your logic. One can only stay within one's borders, defending one's homeland from within those borders. Distance to the threat is critical to your view. The source of the threat must be right next door or internal for one to be "allowed" to do something about that threat. None of those stats, nor the difference in the nature of the threats that I pointed out to show the flaw in your argument changes the flaw.

Of course, you could always just change your argument.
Thank you for noticing that the stats are kind of irrelevant. Why? Because YOU SHOULDN'T BE FIGHTING AL QAEDA WITH CONVENTIONAL MILITARY MEANS. It's a waste of US manpower, blood and money. Infiltration, espionage and improved domestic security is what is required. Or perhaps you can demonstrate to me how what the US military are currently engaged in prevents someone from entering the US, buying some fertilizer, downloading some documents from the internet and walking into the nearest mall and blowing it up?
I agree completely. We should have SOF kicking down doors world-wide and killing these fuckers where they sleep.

oh, wait...we're already doing that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

internment without trial and denying PoW rights to the IRA
But according to FEOS' arguments The Third Geneva Convention us Brits were entitled to do whatever we liked as they were unlawful combatants.
No laws applied.
Fixed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-17 23:12:18
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Fixed.
Hey well there you go.
We were entitled to torture them to death, subject them to kangaroo courts, intern them without trial, beat confessions out of them etc.

Any criticism of the Brits in NI direct to FEOS in future please.
Fuck Israel
2008-11-18 00:59:45
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

FEOS wrote:

For you to think that the AQ situation is the same as the N. Ireland situation is to ignore vast cultural differences and different objectives for each group.
It is similar in that it involves asymmetric warfare against an alien occupation force that will almost always only ever be viewed with suspicion and in some cases open hatred and disdain.

FEOS wrote:

But you have to wait until the other side acts, according to your logic. That "incompetence" was just the reality of your theory.
They had acted - they had made plans to use airliners to crash into buildings: it was captured in a CIA report. The time to act for the US government passed without action, despite having a several month gap to implement measures. FEOS - I can't believe so usually rational a person believes that being caught up in a 'is he a militant, is he a civilian' mire in a part of the world where your nation is widely regarded as the Great Satan is going to prevent further terrorism. It just isn't logical. If someone wants to commit terror against the US they can do that TODAY. And no tanks in Afghanistan can do a thing about that. Do you honestly think you can win a 'war on terror'? War on a fucking concept??? 

FEOS wrote:

But you said the AQ conflict was the same as the NI conflict...which involved invasion and occupation. But that's different...but it's the same. Your argument is contradicting itself.
And you again make the mistake of thinking every conflict is like WWII. Life is not that simplistic. Or perhaps you can demonstrate to me how the Wehrmacht operated as independent cells disguising themselves amongst and being indistinguishable from the civilian populace.

FEOS wrote:

I'm simply applying your principles to all. And you think it's preposterous. Should tell you something about your principles on this topic.
FEOS, all you were trying to suggest was that I was 'picking on' the US. It was quite petty and beneath you.

FEOS wrote:

I agree completely. We should have SOF kicking down doors world-wide and killing these fuckers where they sleep.

oh, wait...we're already doing that.
Oh yeah, that's why terrorism won't happen in the US again....

Your macho man view on how to deal with thorny issues like terrorism reflects your military background. Terrorism of the nature we speak of will persist with or without conventional military intervention. You are fighting in a nation that is practically stone age. Most of the bombers came from your buddy Saudi Arabia who have Wahabiism as the national creed. Saudi Arabia is the source of many of these ills. Cells can and have been operating in Morocco, Turkey, all over the middle east. All you're doing at the moment is pounding mud huts. If someone did an honest cost/benefit analysis you guys would be home by teatime.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-18 02:50:04)

2008-11-18 04:34:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Fixed.
Hey well there you go.
We were entitled to torture them to death, subject them to kangaroo courts, intern them without trial, beat confessions out of them etc.

Any criticism of the Brits in NI direct to FEOS the drafters of the GC in future please.
Fixed again.

Do you think I wrote and passed the GC myself or something?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-18 04:42:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6715|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

For you to think that the AQ situation is the same as the N. Ireland situation is to ignore vast cultural differences and different objectives for each group.
It is similar in that it involves asymmetric warfare against an alien occupation force that will almost always only ever be viewed with suspicion and in some cases open hatred and disdain.
That is where the similarities end. You're talking about two remarkably similar cultures and ethoses when you talk about NI, as well as completely different strategic objectives for the insurgents. It's not remotely the same in the AQ fight.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you have to wait until the other side acts, according to your logic. That "incompetence" was just the reality of your theory.
They had acted - they had made plans to use airliners to crash into buildings: it was captured in a CIA report. The time to act for the US government passed without action, despite having a several month gap to implement measures. FEOS - I can't believe so usually rational a person believes that being caught up in a 'is he a militant, is he a civilian' mire in a part of the world where your nation is widely regarded as the Great Satan is going to prevent further terrorism. It just isn't logical. If someone wants to commit terror against the US they can do that TODAY. And no tanks in Afghanistan can do a thing about that. Do you honestly think you can win a 'war on terror'? War on a fucking concept???
Which buildings? Which cities? How many? Coming from which airports?

Now do you see why the risk couldn't be determined? There were simply too many vectors...like trying to plug a sieve with three plugs.

When did I say that what is being done will prevent further terrorism? So long as there are radicals out there (Islamic or otherwise), there will be terrorism.

We were talking about your "sit and wait" approach. 

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you said the AQ conflict was the same as the NI conflict...which involved invasion and occupation. But that's different...but it's the same. Your argument is contradicting itself.
And you again make the mistake of thinking every conflict is like WWII. Life is not that simplistic. Or perhaps you can demonstrate to me how the Wehrmacht operated as independent cells disguising themselves amongst and being indistinguishable from the civilian populace.
I made no such mistake. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your position.

Cam wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm simply applying your principles to all. And you think it's preposterous. Should tell you something about your principles on this topic.
FEOS, all you were trying to suggest was that I was 'picking on' the US. It was quite petty and beneath you.
No. I wasn't. And you should know better.

Cam wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I agree completely. We should have SOF kicking down doors world-wide and killing these fuckers where they sleep.

oh, wait...we're already doing that.
Oh yeah, that's why terrorism won't happen in the US again....

Your macho man view on how to deal with thorny issues like terrorism reflects your military background. Terrorism of the nature we speak of will persist with or without conventional military intervention. You are fighting in a nation that is practically stone age. Most of the bombers came from your buddy Saudi Arabia who have Wahabiism as the national creed. Saudi Arabia is the source of many of these ills. Cells can and have been operating in Morocco, Turkey, all over the middle east. All you're doing at the moment is pounding mud huts. If someone did an honest cost/benefit analysis you guys would be home by teatime.
And again you misunderestimate (like that?) what I was saying. I said AQ, didn't I? I didn't say terrorism writ large. And my "macho man" attitude actually combines all elements of national power to stop AQ on all fronts...the kicking down the door bit is a very, very small part of the overall effort.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-11-18 05:03:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

FEOS wrote:

That is where the similarities end. You're talking about two remarkably similar cultures and ethoses when you talk about NI, as well as completely different strategic objectives for the insurgents. It's not remotely the same in the AQ fight.
Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so.

FEOS wrote:

Which buildings? Which cities? How many? Coming from which airports?

Now do you see why the risk couldn't be determined? There were simply too many vectors...like trying to plug a sieve with three plugs.

When did I say that what is being done will prevent further terrorism? So long as there are radicals out there (Islamic or otherwise), there will be terrorism.

We were talking about your "sit and wait" approach.
All and any. At any time. Possible many. It tooks just a matter of weeks to implement air marshals, fingerprinting, air traveller phototaking/information gathering (for incoming foreigners) and proper searches at airports all across the length and breadth of the US. But of course a few more bombs dropped on caves and mudhuts would have prevented the need for all that....

FEOS - you are creating more potential terrorists. Just look at the Pakistani popular reaction to US airstrikes within their borders. Are you blind to the consequences??? What is the point in engaging in this money/blood whirlpool if what you're doing doesn't prevent further terrorism!??

FEOS wrote:

I made no such mistake. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your position.
No inconsistency. Like I said, NI is not very similar to WWII and is in many ways far, far more complicated.

FEOS wrote:

And again you misunderestimate (like that?) what I was saying. I said AQ, didn't I? I didn't say terrorism writ large. And my "macho man" attitude actually combines all elements of national power to stop AQ on all fronts...the kicking down the door bit is a very, very small part of the overall effort.
You're right about it being a very small (counterproductive and exorbitantly costed) part, that's for sure.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-18 05:03:46)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard