- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That wasn't going to happen. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia... none of these states have a "Come on in Americans and hunt down terrorists!" policy.
Even if the terrorist activities in Iraq could be defined as a criminal problem, the fact still remains that they are using military tactics to carry out their operations. The only way to combat a military force, is with a military force.
What Iraq really needs is a solid dose of McDonald's and Walmart. And our forces should be there, on the ground, to make that happen.
Hell ya! Make them fat and lazy so they don't wanna be terrorists.
it would be our mistake to extend that mandate. we need to get the hell out of dodge and let the iraqis rule the iraqis, however flawed they might be.
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.
Actually, their tactics are virtually identical to street gangs. You give these groups far too much credit.
Saddam sure didn't (the approach was offered as an alternative to the war)Iraq does.
They are our allies. Many of their people aren't. Leaders who allowed us in to carry out attacks on "terrorists" wouldn't be leaders for very long.However, aren't Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our allies? One might well wonder why we are maintaining friendly relations with nations that have created a climate that is pro-terror.
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.
In terms of American KIA's, it would be better to just stay, until we are certain that the Iraqis can keep a handle on things, no matter how long that is.
Care to post some examples of how street gangs use shaped charges in anti-armor ambushes? I've never noticed that street gangs used any sort of tactical doctrine.
Is there any proof, data, or anything on that or are we just making **** up as we go along?
How are you going to feel about it when we have to send a brand new crop of American troops into Iraq to put things back together, again. They'll have to learn how to fight the enemy all over again.
In terms of American KIA's, it would be better to just stay, until we are certain that the Iraqis can keep a handle on things, no matter how long that is.
How I feel is that we should stop being the world's police department. Our plans for the invasion and nation-building of Iraq were flawed from the onset. Maybe we should get out of the business of propping up handpicked dictators like Saddam Hussein entirely, and then we wouldn't feel compelled to invade when things go sour.
Yoru mentality is viewed upon a neo-con perception that it is America's job to keep order in the world. I'd say that a number of us feel differently.
Yoru mentality is viewed upon a neo-con perception that it is America's job to keep order in the world. I'd say that a number of us feel differently.
Saddam sure didn't (the approach was offered as an alternative to the war)
The difference is in weaponry and firepower, not tactics.
For a long time, America wasn't the world's police force. Then, when things had grown so out of control, that we were forced to get involved, we wound up with a world war that killed a half million Americans. Add up all the combat casualties since WW2 and it's less than half the number of soldiers WIA, KIA ans MIA during WW2.
I'd say that a number of you are wrong and it's based on your short sighted view of the world and a lack of historical knowledge.
that might never happen. we need to get OUT.
No, there's a huge difference in tactics, unless of course, you can show us which tactical doctrine that street gangs use. Care to?
Why? So we declare defeat and shame our veterans for the rest of their lives for being losers, like we did after Vietnam?
Also, we send the message to the bad guys that they do not need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, all they need to do is defeat our gutless politicians in Washington and the anti-war crowd who voted for those politicians.
I', having trouble seeing an upside, here.
None of our police actions around the world since WWII have been effective. Part of our problem in WW2 was that we had insufficient forces to get involved in what was happening in Europe.
History suggests that our involvement in police actions and nation building have failed every single time since WW2.
I support having a large standing volunteer army, but using them far less frequently.
How are our troops shamed by the fact that their CIC didn't have a clear objective, mission, or exit strategy? That's a failure in command staff, not boots on the ground. Further, our officers and enlisted personnel have performed admirably, at great personal cost, in persevering in an unwinnable situation. Conceding that we should never have entered another land war in Asia is only common sense.
The mistake was in becoming an occupying force.
No offense, but speaking for one of the guys in uniform, he'd prefer not to go back to the cluster****. Very little has been accomplished by their bravery, and that's a shame. But the shame belongs to those who put them there, not the guys and gals themselves. I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of all Americans understand this. It's not rocket science.
I'm appalled that you would even try to lay shame at the feet of our military personnel. Seriously. What are you thinking? It's not their fault that they were sent in without a plan as to how this nation building would occur.
I'm appalled that you would even try to lay shame at the feet of our military personnel. Seriously. What are you thinking? It's not their fault that they were sent in without a plan as to how this nation building would occur.
Why? So we declare defeat and shame our veterans for the rest of their lives for being losers, like we did after Vietnam?
Also, we send the message to the bad guys that they do not need to defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, all they need to do is defeat our gutless politicians in Washington and the anti-war crowd who voted for those politicians.
I', having trouble seeing an upside, here.
Has there been any kind of full scale invasion of the United States, or our neighbors? Did the Soviets get a foothold in the western hemishpere? Have there been anymore world wars? Have we deployed millions of American troops to a foreign country, where over a million of them never returned? I would say that our police actions since WW2 have been fairly effective.
Revisionist history tells that tale. The real history tells something totally different.
An army that doesn't fight, doesn't know how to fight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?