- Jun 23, 2009
- Reaction score
- Bagdad, La.
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There is a risk of them being used as drug or bomb mules. The righteous path is much harder for any nation to walk, I would rather we weren't in this mess already.
If we responded with more violence toward the terrorists, we wouldn't have to spend so much time body searching 6 y/o's.
You dont seem to understand that responding with more violence towards terrorists produces more sympathy for them, the collateral damage incurred, etc.
C'mon man, you HAVE to get this by now. A war that would effectively eliminate all terrorists on the planet would produce such a political backlash it'd start a civil war here.
Have you been living under a ****ing rock for the last 10 years?
My god man.
You've invaded 2 ****ing countries, spent over a trillion dollars trying to get them all. What more do you ****ing want?
Different cultures, very different wars. If germany were some psuedocolony of some superchina of a bizarroworld past youd bet thered be terrorists.
How many Japanese and German terrorists were operating post-WW2?
And again to your "this is how we did things in WW2" bull****.
You wanna discuss Ww2 go to the history section, your war against terror is a entirely different kind of conflict...
The entire might of the soviet union with no regards for human life couldn't even achieve victory in afghanistan...
So tell me oh wise master of the universe, how would you win the war in Afghanistan?
And if you say "by destroying the enemy" your even more clueless on warfare then i though... Just because you were in the forces does not make YOU an expert on warfare... Sorry.
And, a very different method in which we approached our enemy. During WW2 we completely broke their will to fight back, which is what we should have done immediately after 9/11.
Defeating the enemy involved no regards for human life?
But it did not ****ing work...
Didn't work for the British, didn't work for the soviets...
How would you win the war in afghanistan?
It didn't work for the Soviets--in Afghanistan--because of U.S. intervention involving high-tech weapons systems, modern anti-armor tactics and the failure on the Soviets's part to adapt their tactics to the terrain in which they found themselves deployed.
But, hey, by all means, educate me. If it's not too much trouble, please post something to support your POV, other than Libbo talking points about winning hearts and minds. As always, thanks in advance. I await your posts with bated breath.