| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| [But that's not how we won the Cold War so.... hmm. |
Interesting point. Last time I read a history book, looks like we weren't bombing the people we were really afraid of in the Cold War, but some other people instead ... sort of begs a question, doesn't it?
Last edited by The Bobster on Thu May 31, 2007 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Quote: |
| IF they are hit hard enough then they won't do it. |
But that's not how we won the Cold War so.... hmm. |
IF they had hit the US then the US would have besides.
Korea and Vietnam were in a least ways much bigger wars than Iraq is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bathists Khomenists and Al Qaedists teach hate , incite violence and plan terror - as a tactic of war.
IF they are hit hard enough then they won't do it.
|
I'm curious Joo, how do you excpect to accomplish this? We've witnessed thus far that a large deployment of the most advanced military in the world can't even quell a band of freedom fighters and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan...
How can they possibly 'hit them harder'???
I'm curious to hear that's all.................  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before I go on please notice that mideast regimes have been very successful in dealing with threats to their rule. So force sometimes works in the mideast
Anyway the US ought to first move US forces to the Kurdish areas .Set up military bases there . Then the US ought to set a policy that the US will try to kill any leader of any regime or eltie in the mideast that helps Al Qaeda ( or similar types ) or allow them to operate. The also needs to start assassinating elites in the mideast assist Al Qaeda - airstrikes are ok.
That would be start.
I don't know if that is enough . If more needs to be done then they US will take it further. How much force ought the US use? Whatever is needed to force the other side to quit sky is the limit. The other side can stop it anytime they want. All they need to do is give up their war.
A big part of this strategy would be the development and deployment of new weapons systems like Rods from God and the Hypersonic Cruise missile. (Check them out on the internet) and let Iran know that they are one of the main one targets of such a systems. Whether it gets used depends on Iran's behavior. However if Iran does anymore attacks like Khobar the US ought to use such devices to destroy Iran's nuclear program once and for all and also try to kill their supreme leader as relataliation.
If this sound like a bit much remember it is kind of unfair to ask / demand the US pull its punches when a war is being waged against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I am pretty sure that many would admit I manage to hold my own in most arguments/ debates |
If you mean "Endlessly repeating the same position over and over again no matter how badly discredited it becomes as time goes on."... Then yes, you manage to handle yourself quite nicely |
Amen. The same old neo-con lines that most Americans have given up on is still being repeated over and over again. Usually of the copying and paste variety.Although it has been awhile since I last read a Saddam-AQ link theory.
EDIT: On another thread I see Joo is still clinging to the old Saddam-AQ link.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq is the New South Korea? |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Well, this explains the reports of American military building bases that look like they are intended to last 30 or more years ...
Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON - President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday |
The good news is this troupe of bozos are gonna be ushered off the stage in a little under 2 years ... scary to think how much more damage they can do my country before the expiration date on their milk carton arrives, though.
About 599 days left, I think. Like I said, scary ... |
Except that your article also states that a long term U.S troop presence and having permanant U.S bases were "not necessarily" what was meant...as Tony Snow pointed out. Also that "it is not always going to require an upfront combat presence"
I seriously doubt that he was suggesting a long term presence for 50 years...he's gone in two and most candidates for president are in favour of bringing the troops home. Even Tony Snow doesn't appear to think that's likely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgeezer wrote: |
| Quote: |
Bathists Khomenists and Al Qaedists teach hate , incite violence and plan terror - as a tactic of war.
IF they are hit hard enough then they won't do it.
|
I'm curious Joo, how do you excpect to accomplish this? We've witnessed thus far that a large deployment of the most advanced military in the world can't even quell a band of freedom fighters and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan...
How can they possibly 'hit them harder'???
I'm curious to hear that's all................. |
Are you serious? The fact that the U.S. is having problems quelling a " band of [terrorists] and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan" only points to the fact that the U.S. is fighting a much more humane battle then Saddam would. After all Saddam had no problem ruling over a large majority of his people with the support of a minority.
If someone like Saddam was in the U.S's position he could could very quickly win this war by simply telling the Sunnis. "You have 60 days to hand your fighters over...tell us where and who they are. Or you can convince them to stop fighting If you don't we will ally with the Shia death squads and it will be open season on all Sunnis in Iraq. Except of course for your children who will be taken in and raised as SHIAS."
You'd see the Sunnis shape up right quick. That's language they understand. They'd put pressure on their own to stop fighting and turn in their rivals.
So we could hit them harder...a lot harder. But simply because we can does not mean we should. We didn't get rid of Saddam to sink to his level.
Just pointing out that it is possible.
But I don't know what Joo would recommend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So we could hit them harder...a lot harder. But simply because we can does not mean we should. We didn't get rid of Saddam to sink to his level.
|
Basically it's a Catch 22 for the U.S......You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't
If they play the card they are now in Iraq (security crackdowns, raids, neighbourhood round-ups) it's too weak of a stance and the insrgency doesn't fizzle like they hope (it's been 5 years now remember, and not much accomplished)
Also if they are too tough and just start reckless aristrikes on insurgent-stronghold cities and villages they kill more civilians and public opinion and resentment for the war goes downhill even faster (In America, Iraq, and the greater middle-east)
They never should have gotten themselves stuck in this quagmire because now whatever the U.S. does looks like a failure! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I am pretty sure that many would admit I manage to hold my own in most arguments/ debates |
If you mean "Endlessly repeating the same position over and over again no matter how badly discredited it becomes as time goes on."... Then yes, you manage to handle yourself quite nicely |
Amen. The same old neo-con lines that most Americans have given up on is still being repeated over and over again. Usually of the copying and paste variety.Although it has been awhile since I last read a Saddam-AQ link theory.
EDIT: On another thread I see Joo is still clinging to the old Saddam-AQ link. |
Saddam did in fact have have contacts with AQ that is what the 9-11 commission said.
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
� Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
� "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
� "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm |
And don't complain about the cut and paste. If I didn't do it then you would say that I didn't have evidence. That is what really bugs you about it.
Saddam did in fact have contacts with AQ. Yes or No?
, but he was also shooting at US planes. He also tried to kill a US president. He also threatened Kuwait well after the gulf war. He never gave up his war did he?
Saddam didn't have a right to his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But I don't know what Joo would recommend. |
Go to Kurdistan now. Improve capablities and then take it from there.
It makes more sense to attack those at the very top who are behind attacks on your forces or citizens then to fight with insurgents who really are replacable.
As long as those behind the attacks are safe and living well they have no incentive to give up their war.
Is the US fighting the right target? Why the insurgents? Why is the US not finding a way of killing Sadr ? Why not a decapitation strike against Iran's supreme leader and the guardian council? Why not kill the tribal leaders in Wazerastan the protect Bin Laden? Why not radical pro Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. and so on and so on.
The US has allowed the enemy to choose the form of war that is the least desirable to the US.
Ought the US not be better off destroying military infrastructure and weapons. More imporant than that.
Ought not the US be trying to kill the leaders that are fighting the US and then let the insurgents / terrorists/ resistance/ run around like a chicken with its head cut off?
The insurgents are a symptom, not the problem.
The US military needs to be able to:
Assassinate the leaders and high level officials of enemy regimes or organizations./ ( Decapitation strikes)
Destroy enemy military facilities, including WMD facilities
Destroy enemy military equipment.
Destroy enemy infrastructure.
Kill / demoralize enemy soldiers on the battlefield.
Win Naval battles
Gain air supremacy.
Gain space supremacy.
Conduct special forces missions.
Guard US bases.
If the US military can fulfill the above objectives. then insurgents don�t really matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Iraq is the New South Korea? |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| he's gone in two and most candidates for president are in favour of bringing the troops home. |
It's what allows me to sleep at night and hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
| Quote: |
| the U.S. is fighting a much more humane battle then Saddam would. |
America can do better than just, "At least we're better than Saddam would have been." Great Ceasar's Ghost, I SURE do love my country more than to even put it close to the same basket Saddam ever occupied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Iraq is the New South Korea? |
|
|
Saddam's war and his revolutionary agenda was illegitimate.
The US is justified to put an end to that and the war against it by the Bathists, the Khomenists and the Al Qaedists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq is the New South Korea? |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| he's gone in two and most candidates for president are in favour of bringing the troops home. |
It's what allows me to sleep at night and hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
| Quote: |
| the U.S. is fighting a much more humane battle then Saddam would. |
America can do better than just, "At least we're better than Saddam would have been." Great Ceasar's Ghost, I SURE do love my country more than to even put it close to the same basket Saddam ever occupied. |
Funny, it has the opposite effect on me...I sure hope Rudy gets in.
Did you even READ what I said? Here I'll post it again and put the important word(s) in capitals so you can understand.
"the U.S. is fighting a MUCH more humane battle then Saddam would". First of all I was pointing out to mcgeezer that this is why America is losing.
Secondly saying MUCH MORE hardly equates to putting " it close to the same basket Saddam ever occupied." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
travelight
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are using an editorial article by Stephen J. Hadley (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/hadleybio.html) to make factual points???
To get the "contacts" in there true context, one should read this article about the 9/11 commission report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
A few excerpts from the article are:
---The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.----
---But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.---
---The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why were there any contacts to do nice things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
