- This topic has 43 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: increased terrorism risk
well…OBL and Al Quaida didnt set their sights on the US till after we invaded Iraq the first time and set up a permenant military base in Saudi Arabia. Up until that point Osama was considered an ally of the US.Why did we invade and overthrow the government of Afghanistan? We were able to hunt down and kill Bin Laden in Pakistan without invading and occupying the whole nation.Why did we invade and occupy Iraq for almost 10 years when we were never attacked or threatened by that country?
Just because we dont agree with a countrys leadership doesnt mean we can invade and ignore their sovereignty.quote KMMAN:It’s very easy to sit back and criticize but the US has the obligation to protect its interests, its citizens and our allies. Is there another country that would go to the extent we do to help another country? Sure, its easy for Canada to sit back nicely since theres no way in hell anyone is going to mess with Canada with the good ole USA right below…..aint gonna happen! Must be a nice position to be in!Anyone…and I do mean anyone that truly believes these psychopath religious fanatics with a mission statement of destroying a nation and killing civilians (3000 in office buildings) will stop is surely misguided. The so called leadership needs this turmoil or they’d be rendered useless…….Children are taught to hate people in schools. The hatred starts there LONG before a 5 year old kid knows of any US policies.
Our sons and daughters must do the work for other countries.
Kevin I am disgusted my your remark, especially being about 100 miles away from NYC. Which invasion exactly was responsible for 9/11?
That said, I respect your right to say what you want. In fact, my son has applied to West Point to protect you as well.
So everyone can just sit back and analyze as the young men and woman of the US do the heavy lifting.
Re: increased terrorism risk
While I agree that OBL was angered when we went into Kuwait, his connection with, and belief of, the Islamic revival movement would have eventually brought him into conflict with the secular United States. I would not say that the US allied with him; only that he, and others like him, stood in the way of Soviet/Communist expansion and so we gave him the tools with which to prosecute his campaign. In this day and age a policy of isolationism will get us nowhere. Sitting inside your fortress hands the initiative to your opponent in a hand basket. Clever and determined extremists will find a way around our security. It will inevitably happen. Regardless of whether or not the two wars were legal, pulling out now and leaving them to fend for themselves will not do any good for any party involved. It will show that we lack the physical and moral endurance to fight, we will lose credibility when we promise things to other countries, it will shame our country in the world’s eyes and it will lend the ultimate level of legitimacy to the Islamic extremist movement, thus creating 2 more nations in the M.E. that are led by Islamic extremists and governed by a very harsh form of government.
Re: increased terrorism risk
quote TacticalTimmy:While I agree that OBL was angered when we went into Kuwait, his connection with, and belief of, the Islamic revival movement would have eventually brought him into conflict with the secular United States. I would not say that the US allied with him; only that he, and others like him, stood in the way of Soviet/Communist expansion and so we gave him the tools with which to prosecute his campaign. In this day and age a policy of isolationism will get us nowhere. Sitting inside your fortress hands the initiative to your opponent in a hand basket. Clever and determined extremists will find a way around our security. It will inevitably happen. Regardless of whether or not the two wars were legal, pulling out now and leaving them to fend for themselves will not do any good for any party involved. It will show that we lack the physical and moral endurance to fight, we will lose credibility when we promise things to other countries, it will shame our country in the world’s eyes and it will lend the ultimate level of legitimacy to the Islamic extremist movement, thus creating 2 more nations in the M.E. that are led by Islamic extremists and governed by a very harsh form of government.This is the mindset that the US will have to try and ween itself off of if they want to stop being the target of attention and opportunity. I’ve no doubt that the US only gets involved in something when it believes it is doing it for the greater good. I’m sure with the invasion of Iraq there were nothing but good intentions. And of course the US takes heat for the failures.. it’s funny how quiet the media, and other nations are at the many successes the US has dabling in international affairs. But…there are better ways to your good work. Constant talk of fight, and showing weakness, and standing your ground, etc…..is this approach practical, or even realistic?
-Getting into international disputes/wars like Iraq, then scratching your head wondering why you have increased terrorist threats and more soldiers getting killed is short sighted. If the US was to slowly change it’s approach and use more diplomatic/economic pressures in lieu of shooting from the hip, it will mitigate the target it seems to always puts on itself. Premptive strikes and tampering in foreign affairs because your concerned of future countries that may attack the US is a long way away from invading existing countries that posed no threat, but now have created groups with you on there radar in revenge. No one deserves to die, and in NO way am I defending or reasoning away attacks against the US or any other state, and I shed no tears for Osama Bin Laden’s death….but terrorists, or foreign states do not spin the globe, let there finger land on the US and say thats the country I”m gonna centre out today.
-No one is talking about isolationism, or the US ignoring other people’s plights…but changing the approach you choose to “help” maybe worth a try. The approach that “we are going to help these people, give them our concept of democracy”, etc…..and sincerely believe you are doing another nation/people a favour…well…sometimes your not. I agree that once your there, like Iraq..it would be worse on the nation now if you up and left than staying the course. But not because you are showing weakness, or “moral endurance to fight” (oxymoron?). I doubt the general public gives a **** about your moral endurance more than they care about feeding there families and eeking out a decent life in Iraq. You have to remain or else it will get even worse for the general population if you didn’t. Thats not an argument for going there in the first place though.
-Stop acting unilaterily. I don’t know what that “your either with us or against us” crap was about, but that won’t win you any international points either. And not only gives fuel and resentment to foreign enemies, it also isolates and irritates your closest allies. Canada is usually the poor little brother you have to take along with you to all your international conflicts. We know it, and we know our military is for the most part a lot of over paid uniformed civil servants living off the sentiments of the publics longing of traditional “good guy bad guy” wars like WW II…..but…we didn’t follow you to Iraq. There was a reason for that.
-Historically…if you want to play the role of foreign occupying power. Even for good or noble reasons…you have to win the hearts of the people. If not, you’ve already lost, you just don’t know it yet. Think about whats happening right now where the US has decided to plant its flag. There are some great examples where it has worked out all right for the US. Peurto Rico, Hawaii are excellent examples. But where it isn’t…all it has done is galvanize groups of people otherwise disgruntled but now have a direction to throw there anger at. Napoleon, Alexander the great, etc. had great success. They gave the occupied countries something. I recommend you read: “Napoleon on Napoleon.” His autobiography. That’s Napoleon Bonaparte…not Dynamite. Look at longer term goals, and the bigger picture of protecting the US, it’s allies, and how about everyone else for that matter too….and stop drawing lines in the sand which is true isolationism.Re: increased terrorism risk
I agree with you on winning the hearts and minds and am a huge proponent of COIN Ops, but its being conducted in the wrong way. The entire concept of nation building the Afghanis and Iraqis into what we are trying to do is ludicrous. It is too much of a change in too short of a time. Additionally they are trying to find the simple plug and play tactics with a “one size fits all” approach. This does not work at all, especially in the two countries whose culture revolves around familial, tribal and clan ties regardless of what the popular opinion may or may not be. Naturally there will be an increased risk of terrorism if you go to a village, let the people vote for someone and shut out the local warlord and all of the people who used to cooperate with him. The difference is, the increased terrorism threat is more of an issue abroad than in CONUS.
Re: increased terrorism risk
Well here you go…this should be the first step in everyone liking us. Lets see the response we get from the Middle East….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_mideast_12
Re: increased terrorism risk
For some reason I had thought Jeremy’s last name was Glickman. I had him confused with somebody else. His last name is Glick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Glick?vm=r
It is always better to have strength in numbers. I hope this never happens again but if it does then it is better to have the fellow good passengers stop the bad terrorists even if it means dying so that anothers may live.
Horrible thoughts to have right before getting on an airplane & it does not matter if you are a tourist or on business or one of the airline employees but remember the bad terrorists do not care about any of that so in the event something like that happens. It is absoutely critical to stop the bad terrorists from reaching their goals.
In my eyes, Jeremy Glick and the other good passengers that day succeeded and the terrorist’s plan backfired in their faces.
I have always believed that God will always find a way to defeat evil and this is what precisely happened that day.
Evil plans always backfire even if they look successful from a distance. They never succeed.
I am happy OBL is dead and this is the beginning of the end for terrorists and their wicked regimes coming to an end. Good always overcomes evil.
Re: increased terrorism risk
quote KMMAN:Well here you go…this should be the first step in everyone liking us. Lets see the response we get from the Middle East….http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_mideast_12
Your joking right? 🙂 It’s not a “here you go, now sit back and bask in the glory they will bestow” type of thing…….bow1 It may take a little more than this, and some time between some sore issues in the middle east, but I think Obama on this particular issue may be on the right track.
Re: increased terrorism risk
quote TacticalTimmy:I agree with you on winning the hearts and minds and am a huge proponent of COIN Ops, but its being conducted in the wrong way. The entire concept of nation building the Afghanis and Iraqis into what we are trying to do is ludicrous. It is too much of a change in too short of a time. Additionally they are trying to find the simple plug and play tactics with a “one size fits all” approach. This does not work at all, especially in the two countries whose culture revolves around familial, tribal and clan ties regardless of what the popular opinion may or may not be. Naturally there will be an increased risk of terrorism if you go to a village, let the people vote for someone and shut out the local warlord and all of the people who used to cooperate with him. The difference is, the increased terrorism threat is more of an issue abroad than in CONUS.Well said. Appreciating different cultures, values, morals, etc. is important when in another country too and by recognizing that can be a great part of the battle won.
Re: increased terrorism risk
Part of the problem that I saw is they are removing the flexibility of commanders and trying to develop a “checklist” approach to COIN Ops. They’re taking what worked on a very small scale and suddenly applying that standard to an entire province and expecting the same results. Its like saying that amputating the foot to save the body will work if you have a problem with, and amputate, the head as well. A procedure conducted on/in two parts of the same whole will not end with the same outcome. COIN Ops is a small unit game plan that at current is lacking in big unit support. The surge in Afghanistan will remove the organized militant groups but unless they fix the security and stability part the insurgents will move back in. The people have to want to get rid of the insurgents and to make punishment for housing insurgents worse than having the insurgents in charge is not the way to do it.
Re: increased terrorism risk
Tactical Timmy, I hope our next U.S. President will have more common-sense and the flexibility when it comes to military matters.
The GOP field looks promising but will have to wait and see who emerges as the GOP candidate when 2012 rolls around the corner.
Re: increased terrorism risk
The Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu mentioned today in the address to the U.S. Congress that Bibi congraulated Obama on killing Osama Bin Laden. Bibi said ” Good riddance to Osama Bin Laden ” and this should erase any doubts.
The modern day Israelites has just confirmed Osama Bin Laden is really dead. :beer:
Re: increased terrorism risk
Netanyahu receives warm reception in Congress
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers from both sides of the American political divide are giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a rapturous congressional reception, with frequent and sustained standing ovations.
In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Netanyahu congratulated the United States for killing Osama bin Laden, wishing the al-Qaida leader “good riddance” and making the case that America and Israel are paragons of democracy.
He dismissed early shouts from a female protester as evidence that freedom of speech is alive and well and respected in both countries, while it is punished in Arab states now going through upheaval.
Netanyahu thanked Congress for its support of Israel, which he said supports true democracy throughout the Middle East and wants peace with its Arab neighbors.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_us_israel_netanyahu
Re: increased terrorism risk
quote JewishFitness1976:Zechariah 8:23 or [/B]Zekharyah 8:23Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
HUH???:confused:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
