Shouldn't you wait for it to actually end before saying something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Printable View
Shouldn't you wait for it to actually end before saying something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I had a wonderful post, that the board ate, and it boils down to this:
Kerry, Bush, and every damned 'political' type is playing politics right now. I'm fed up with it. I should run for government...
OH, and there was a nice breakdown of what I think Dems. and Rep. core views are SUPPOSED to be about, but people seem to ignore that and like cushy sterotypes again.
I'm not retyping it either.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who would call a war in which our pretenses for going proved false, where our leaders completely misunderstood what terrorism is and was and are being taught with this insurgence and where we gave terrorist numbers a booster shot the most successful campaign we've ever led is either a fanatic, mentally handicapped or just foolin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
When it comes to the actual Iraqi army, these are the guys who were surrendering in droves back in '91. Even to news crews. We KNEW they weren't going to be much of a problem, we were just better. That wasn't much of a challange. Now we have one, now things aren't going so well. That's just the way it is.
Yoshi said Bush "ran the most efficient war," not the most successful. You know, how like if you set a landmine to kill someone where you know they will step, it's more efficient than skinning them with a dull knife - especially if you can get some poor kids to dig the hole for the mine.
Look how inefficient those terrorists are with all their grainy videos and beheadings. Hell, we just push the big red button. We don't even have to think much about why we're there. That would be inefficient.
Then I completely misread that. My bad.
*goes back to the corner*
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC
I posted on this in a different thread. Basically everyone is saying how this war has caused terrorism to surge and that Bush has been ineffective in fighting terrorism. I completely disagree. The terrorists of the pre-9/11 era were much smaller but were actually able to perform much better. The terrorists gathered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern countries are the poorest examples of combatants that the world has ever seen. These are men who can hardly get any funding, have NO training, and absolutely NO combat effectiveness whatsoever. An entire city FILLED with terrorists (Fallujah) fell down to its knee and begged the US for a cease fire because of maybe 5 squads of USMC snipers that were hidden in the city.
The terrorists we're fighting are extreme cowards, have no combat effectiveness, and will piss their pants and run at the first sign of trouble. There has been a few direct attacks here and there against US forces in Iraq but all of them have met with complete and utter defeat at the hands of US Marines or US Soldiers. A Marine convoy, not even front-line troops was attacked not too long ago (I'm not 100% on the numbers) and the Marines suffered 5 casulties, three were back on duty that day and the other two had to spend some time in the hospital. The terrorists? 25 captured and probably 4 times that number in dead. I think I heard that around 20,000 or so insurgents have massed in Iraq (I don't believe this groups includes members of such pathetic and powerless groups like the Al-Sadr brigade) and most of them are located in Fallujah. The Marine Corp has been making plans to go back to Fallujah and finish the job this time, with an overall kill ratio of something like 1:200 the US might lose anywhere from 100-200 troops in the most vicious battle we've been engaged in during the Iraqi war, but the payoff will be the 20,000 dead insurgents.
It seems to me the terrorists of our world completely suck, there are some who are still large threats but with their communication networks shutting down and the central leadership collapsing it seems all most of these terrorists are good for is combat training for US forces and hiding in caves in Pakistan. You can continue to say Bush has made the terrorists stronger but he's forced many of the dangerous ones into hiding, cut off their funding, captured many important figures, and has bred a new breed of terrorists that are only good at terrorizing their own civilians when they get pissy about getting their asses kicked by the First Marine Division. Talk to some Marines or soldiers that have been off in several places fighting terrorists. Look into a lot of smaller news events and start crunching statistics and the consistency of failed terrorists operations. If you still want to argue what a douce Bush is for making the terrorists of our world so much stronger then I believe you're suffering from some serious political bias. It seems if Bush was able to invent an anti-terrorist button and eradicated all of them at the push of a button and brought complete peace to Iraq you'd all still be complaining.
Good to see the military brainwashing is going swell for you.
No time for the old in-out, love, I've just come to read the meter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Until I start hearing combat statistics and news that shows otherwise we won't write that off as "military brainwashing". Hell, I'm not even associated with the military anymore. Yeah, there was brainwashing but it was the type that made you practice drill movements instead of writing letters during square away time and maintaining the disclipline to not even blink without being told. All of us were in too bad of a mood to think to ourselves "I love the country and I love the Marine Corps."
I'm sorry dude, but that whole rant was....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-le..._Iraq#Fallujah
There's no question that the US-led coallition have been decimating the terrorists, but it's a radical acute solution to a chronic deep rooted problem.
It's pretty simple, think of the terrorists as being cancer. What's better? To not worry about exposing yourself to a carcinogen, getting cancer and then getting it removed with surgery; or to not expose yourself to the carcinogen in the first place so you never get cancer.
For every terrorist you kill, you're pissing off more possible future terrorists, that will in turn become terrorists that you will have to kill. What would be better is to ensure that those kids never become terrorists, by not doing stupid shit like supporting Isreal.
The problem with strong conservatives as they are short sighted, they never look far in the past to see reaccuring cycles, and they never look far in the future to see possible threats. They only give a shit about today, and that's suicide in tiny, small, increments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Those are good points and I agree with you that the threat is manifesting in a lot of ways, but I see the newer manifestestions as much weaker then the original. More does not always mean better.
And as for looking at the future, if the terrorists want a war of attrition I believe they'll get it. It might be long, it might be bloody but they won't be able to win. Honestly though, I see the Middle East being completly decimated within the next 10-20 years when the super-powers (China, US, EU) end up going to war over oil. We'll see about that though, one of the "extreme" beliefs I hold with oil reserves running out.