Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror? (1 Viewer)

alon504

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2002
Messages
4,349
Reaction score
25
Location
New Orleans, LA
Offline
Many see Iraq as a mess. To me, it has gotten somewhat stagnant. But, didn't Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11? And, now, we have Al Qaeda IN IRAQ claiming that they have amassed 12,000 troops against the United States. We are at war with terror, but, the biggest enemy, for obvious reasons is Al Qaeda. Granted, we did draw them in to Iraq, but, if we have an enemy and they decide to relocate 1,000 miles to the West to fight us in Iraq, and not Afghanistan (although we are fighting them in Afghanistan, as well), isn't it still fighting the CORRECT enemy? Why are Americans (mainly Democrats) wanting to retreat from the battle? Is there a different strategy? Do we really want to present any inkling of a weak front after what occurred on 9/11? I'm really shocked and surprised at the strategy proposed by many Democrats that offers a policy of retreat from enemy #1. How can this be? Did anyone expect this would be a pretty war? We had to know how ugly and sickening it would become if the enemy started the war by hijacking our own planes and crashing them into our own buildings to kill so many innocent Americans. So, now, we have a large group of people that are proposing retreating and backing off from fighting Al Qaeda. What do we do next?
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,158
Reaction score
21,172
Offline
Many see Iraq as a mess. To me, it has gotten somewhat stagnant. But, didn't Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11? And, now, we have Al Qaeda IN IRAQ claiming that they have amassed 12,000 troops against the United States. We are at war with terror, but, the biggest enemy, for obvious reasons is Al Qaeda. Granted, we did draw them in to Iraq, but, if we have an enemy and they decide to relocate 1,000 miles to the West to fight us in Iraq, and not Afghanistan (although we are fighting them in Afghanistan, as well), isn't it still fighting the CORRECT enemy? Wny are Americans (mainly Democrats) wanting to retreat from the battle? Is there a different strategy? Do we really want to present any inkling of a weak front after what occurred on 9/11? I'm really shocked and surprised at the strategy proposed by many Democrats that offers a policy of retreat from enemy #1. How can this be? Did anyone expect this would be a pretty war? We had to know how ugly and sickening it would become if the enemy started the war by hijacking our own planes and crashing them into our own buildings to kill so many innocent Americans. So, now, we have a large group of people that are proposing retreating and backing off from fighting Al Qaeda. What do we do next?
Many might think that a strategy of open ended occupation has been proven to be bankrupt.

The Israeli example shows that it can not stop terror attacks after 50 years. And the IDF has only that little patch of rocks on the West Bank to deal with.

We don't want to be in Iraq 50 years from now, so hopefully we will show a little more flexibility than the Israelis. Hopefully this is a start.

Should be possible since we don't plan on building any colonies in the middle of Iraq or transferring any of our population into Baghdad.

But you have false logic. To end an occupation of Iraq does not mean you are backing off on the "War on Terror." We can still strike Al Queda or terrorists wherever they may be. It's not an either or proposition.
 
Last edited:

gumbeau

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
877
Reaction score
0
Offline
Because we have become a nation of the weak, mainly.

Even the greatest generation faced a crisis after 4 years of war and Europe defeated.

Many were ready to accept something less than unconditional surrender from Japan.

Japan's strategy was to inflict as much pain as possible in the hopes the US would come to the table. Japan knew they could not win after 1943. The strategy did not work but we were a different nation.

This time we are going to lose and most don't even know we are fighting WWIV.
 

Random Fan

Guest
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
852
Reaction score
0
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Many see Iraq as a mess. To me, it has gotten somewhat stagnant. But, didn't Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11? And, now, we have Al Qaeda IN IRAQ ...
But they aren't in Times Square. I have always been of the opinion that you don't fight terrorists with the conventional army. The actual threat to the United States doesn't doesn't come from the Al Qaeda irregulars skirmishing with U.S. troops in the sands of a far away nation. It comes from the ones that hide in dark caves and other various countries around the globe plotting and planning the next horrific attack on American soil.

Killing a terrorist accomplishes nothing. For every terrorist you kill, there are probably 10 other militants who would leap up to take his place.

The "war" on terrorism is best fought with intelligence and clandestine operations. If a surgical strike is require once in a while you can break out Delta Force or the Navy Seals. Military units specifically trained in counter-terrorism.

All of the money they are sinking into a conventional ground war can be best spent in other places the least of which would be raising salaries for those that work in the government intelligence sector like the CIA, FBI, NSA and so on. Most people can make far more money in the private sector, if you level the salaries, that really sharp guy that had to leave the NSA because his wife is expecting a second child would be able to stay, etc. You could extend federal grants to exceptional high school students that show aptitude in these areas who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford college and/or graduate school. Hell, you might even be better off using that $50 million you spend on a tank as a reward for credible information received leading to the foiling of a terrorist attack.

To borrow an oft used analogy, the "war" against terrorism in Iraq is about as effective as performing surgery with a meat cleaver.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
36,949
Reaction score
19,966
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
But they aren't in Times Square. I have always been of the opinion that you don't fight terrorists with the conventional army. The actual threat to the United States doesn't doesn't come from the Al Qaeda irregulars skirmishing with U.S. troops in the sands of a far away nation. It comes from the ones that hide in dark caves and other various countries around the globe plotting and planning the next horrific attack on American soil.

Killing a terrorist accomplishes nothing. For every terrorist you kill, there are probably 10 other militants who would leap up to take his place.

The "war" on terrorism is best fought with intelligence and clandestine operations. If a surgical strike is require once in a while you can break out Delta Force or the Navy Seals. Military units specifically trained in counter-terrorism.

All of the money they are sinking into a conventional ground war can be best spent in other places the least of which would be raising salaries for those that work in the government intelligence sector like the CIA, FBI, NSA and so on. Most people can make far more money in the private sector, if you level the salaries, that really sharp guy that had to leave the NSA because his wife is expecting a second child would be able to stay, etc. You could extend federal grants to exceptional high school students that show aptitude in these areas who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford college and/or graduate school. Hell, you might even be better off using that $50 million you spend on a tank as a reward for credible information received leading to the foiling of a terrorist attack.

To borrow an oft used analogy, the "war" against terrorism in Iraq is about as effective as performing surgery with a meat cleaver.

Great post.

All I'll add is that Americans are tired of the war in Iraq, not the war on terrorists. The war in Iraq is not stopping terrorists from attacking us and it is not taking care of the ones who are plotting to attack us. In addition, Al Queda was not even in Iraq until after we attacked so it was the wrong strategy to go after Al Queda in the first place.

I'm tired of us spending billions fighting a war in Iraq while relatively little is done to catch and kill Osama Bin Laden. I'm committed to killing the terrorists who have attcked the United States and who plan to do so in the future. I am not committed to a foolish war. The comparison to WWII is inappropriate. In WWII when we were attacked by Japan we went to war with Japan and their allies, we did not go to war against Argentina. In addition, in WWII we had a nation states with standing armies and battle lines to fight. That does not exist in the war on terro.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,700
Reaction score
6,750
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
But they aren't in Times Square. I have always been of the opinion that you don't fight terrorists with the conventional army. The actual threat to the United States doesn't doesn't come from the Al Qaeda irregulars skirmishing with U.S. troops in the sands of a far away nation. It comes from the ones that hide in dark caves and other various countries around the globe plotting and planning the next horrific attack on American soil.

Killing a terrorist accomplishes nothing. For every terrorist you kill, there are probably 10 other militants who would leap up to take his place.

The "war" on terrorism is best fought with intelligence and clandestine operations. If a surgical strike is require once in a while you can break out Delta Force or the Navy Seals. Military units specifically trained in counter-terrorism.

All of the money they are sinking into a conventional ground war can be best spent in other places the least of which would be raising salaries for those that work in the government intelligence sector like the CIA, FBI, NSA and so on. Most people can make far more money in the private sector, if you level the salaries, that really sharp guy that had to leave the NSA because his wife is expecting a second child would be able to stay, etc. You could extend federal grants to exceptional high school students that show aptitude in these areas who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford college and/or graduate school. Hell, you might even be better off using that $50 million you spend on a tank as a reward for credible information received leading to the foiling of a terrorist attack.

To borrow an oft used analogy, the "war" against terrorism in Iraq is about as effective as performing surgery with a meat cleaver.

I'll second Widge's statement. Very well put. Hope you stick around and post more.

I'll just add it's quite specious to compare the "war on terror" with World War II, Korea, or any other conventional war, for that matter.

Because it's a war which will have no ending. Ever try and completely get rid of an ideology?

Well, since terrorism is a method of war based on an idea, not a nation state, it only stands to reason that it won't ever have an end. There won't be the surrender of the terrorists on an aircraft carrier.

And the sooner people get away from looking at this war in a conventional prism, the better off we'll be. Including politicians, the intel. community, and the military.
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
56
Location
da boyah
Offline
alon504,

Do you support enacting all of the elements recommended by the 9-11 commission? That seems to be the Democrats' strategy. Others, like Chairman Dean, have stated that they were against the invasion of Iraq (he didn't see it as either as part of the greater war on terror or as essential to export democracy ala the neocons who ran the war). So Dean said, we obviously have to acknowledge the fact that we're over there and deal with it from that perspective. Stabilize the country and get out after that (or have some other limited presence) and allow the Arab League to police the country or perhaps under a joint auspices of the Arab League and the U.N.

I did hear we had planned 4 major military bases in Iraq (if not already complete), so it's possible that we will be fighting some of the war on terror from bases in Iraq. :shrug:

But the principle is that not everyone views the Iraqi invasion as the (quote/unquote) War on Terror.

TPS
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
56
Location
da boyah
Offline
FWIW, the generic "Democrat" doesn't work I suppose. I'm sure there are serious doves who would just as soon get out today. But that's not going to happen. This is from Dean's radio address today:


"Voters also made it clear that they want defense policies that are tough and smart. ... We will listen to the military, take their advice, and ensure that our troops and agencies have the tools and equipment they need to defend our freedom," he said. (Watch Dean talk about 'tough and smart' Democratic goals -- 3:30)
Several Democratic military veterans were among those elected, Dean said. Among them were Jim Webb of Virginia; Tim Walz of Minnesota; Phil Hare of Illinois; and retired Adm. Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy and Chris Carney of Pennsylvania.
Veterans Day celebrates the armistice that ended World War I in 1918.
"Over the next two years, Democrats will lead with unified agenda that restores hope and opportunity, competence and responsibility," Dean said.
To better protect the nation, Democrats are committed, he said, to implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 commission.


Sounds like a reasonable policy. Trust the military to fight the wars (rather than idealogues), enact the recommendations of the commission, be smart and tough. Not bad IMHO, perhaps even a little more refined from what we've gotten out of the DoD.

TPS
 
OP
alon504

alon504

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2002
Messages
4,349
Reaction score
25
Location
New Orleans, LA
Offline
TPS, and to everyone...you know what I really support?! I support fighting, one on one with the enemies that claimed responsibility for what occurred on 9/11. That is 100% of what I support. And they have said, clearly to us and the rest of the world that their name is Al Qaeda. Now I hear that "Al Qaeda in Iraq," claims 12,000 troops in Iraq fighting the Americans. To me, it seems on target with what we are doing. Al Qaeda is trampling on the same soil as American troops. Can we get any closer??? And I find it VERY disturbing that Al Qaeda has publicly expressed, through the television AND the internet, joy and victory, over the Democrats having victory in the United States with our most recent election. Certainly, this HAS to be the ultimate insult to anyone who is joyous over a Democrat victory with the last elections. Something is TRULY up if we are at war with a group that attacked our country, on the homeland, and they are expressing joy over a party that recently claimed victory in an election. Not only is that suspect, to the rest of the world, but, it is a major slap in the face to anyone who thinks that party is defending this counrty. Why is the enemy so excited about the Democrats victory? Can someone please answer that question, amongst a host of other questions I have posed? Why is Al Qaeda happy the Democrats won the last election? Can a Democrat, on this board, answer the previous question for me? It is extremely concerning to me, considering, we are talking about the enemy?!
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,700
Reaction score
6,750
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
TPS, and to everyone...you know what I really support?! I support fighting, one on one with the enemies that claimed responsibility for what occurred on 9/11. That is 100% of what I support. And they have said, clearly to us and the rest of the world that their name is Al Qaeda. Now I hear that "Al Qaeda in Iraq," claims 12,000 troops in Iraq fighting the Americans. To me, it seems on target with what we are doing. Al Qaeda is trampling on the same soil as American troops. Can we get any closer??? And I find it VERY disturbing that Al Qaeda has publicly expressed, through the television AND the internet, joy and victory, over the Democrats having victory in the United States with our most recent election. Certainly, this HAS to be the ultimate insult to anyone who is joyous over a Democrat victory with the last elections. Something is TRULY up if we are at war with a group that attacked our country, on the homeland, and they are expressing joy over a party that recently claimed victory in an election. Not only is that suspect, to the rest of the world, but, it is a major slap in the face to anyone who thinks that party is defending this counrty. Why is the enemy so excited about the Democrats victory? Can someone please answer that question, amongst a host of other questions I have posed? Why is Al Qaeda happy the Democrats won the last election? Can a Democrat, on this board, answer the previous question for me? It is extremely concerning to me, considering, we are talking about the enemy?!

hahahahah.

Want an answer to your last question?

Here's the thread.

http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2801

In short, it means absolutely nothing, because Al-Queda would have said the same thing if the Republicans won. To make anything more of Al-Queda's blustering would be buying into meaningless propaganda.

And to advance it as anything more would be engaged in useless, partisan gutter-politics which does nothing for substantive discussion.
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
56
Location
da boyah
Offline
>>Can someone please answer that question, amongst a host of other questions I have posed?

A couple of reasons IMHO. A) They hate President Bush (viewed as arrogant and a bully and all that). B) Democrats post-Vietnam have been generally viewed as more diplomatic. But I think it's primarily that they're laughing about President Bush's party taking some defeats.

FWIW, I agree with you as far as fighting them on their turf. It's not particularly fair to Joe Iraqi that they're also part of the incitement of civil war that has cost the lives of tends of thousands of innocent civilians. But hopefully they'll turn on them eventually instead of each other. :shrug:

TPS
 
OP
alon504

alon504

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2002
Messages
4,349
Reaction score
25
Location
New Orleans, LA
Offline
hahahahah.

Want an answer to your last question?

Here's the thread.

http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2801

In short, it means absolutely nothing, because Al-Queda would have said the same thing if the Republicans won. To make anything more of Al-Queda's blustering would be buying into meaningless propaganda.

And to advance it as anything more would be engaged in useless, partisan gutter-politics which does nothing for substantive discussion.
Then why do Democrats propose retreating from the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighting our troops in Iraq? I'm not posing this as anything other than a very concerned citizen. Yes, I'm Republican, but, I'm scared to death with Al Qeada claiming all of this stuff and these "troops" in Iraq and the Democrats proposing retreat. As an American, regardless of party, this is very concerning. I just don't want us to send the wrong message, in light of the fact that we are, pretty much, already fighting Al Qaeda one on one and that is why it is so ugly. The suicide bombings, roadside bombings, kidnappings, etc., are hallmark occurrences that reveal, we are already one on one with the enemy and it seems that some are proposing retreating from this type of warfare, when, in reality, this it the type of warfare the enemy is offering and they have already publicly claimed that we could not stand up to this type of warfare. Does retreat reveal that it is simply too ugly and too much for us?
 

Taceo

Saintastic
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
2,680
Age
37
Offline
Because we have become a nation of the weak, mainly.

Even the greatest generation faced a crisis after 4 years of war and Europe defeated.

Many were ready to accept something less than unconditional surrender from Japan.

Japan's strategy was to inflict as much pain as possible in the hopes the US would come to the table. Japan knew they could not win after 1943. The strategy did not work but we were a different nation.

This time we are going to lose and most don't even know we are fighting WWIV.
So should we drop my bomb or yours?
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
36,949
Reaction score
19,966
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Then why do Democrats propose retreating from the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighting our troops in Iraq? I'm not posing this as anything other than a very concerned citizen. Yes, I'm Republican, but, I'm scared to death with Al Qeada claiming all of this stuff and these "troops" in Iraq and the Democrats proposing retreat. As an American, regardless of party, this is very concerning. I just don't want us to send the wrong message, in light of the fact that we are, pretty much, already fighting Al Qaeda one on one and that is why it is so ugly. The suicide bombings, roadside bombings, kidnappings, etc., are hallmark occurrences that reveal, we are already one on one with the enemy and it seems that some are proposing retreating from this type of warfare, when, in reality, this it the type of warfare the enemy is offering and they have already publicly claimed that we could not stand up to this type of warfare. Does retreat reveal that it is simply too ugly and too much for us?

First, it's not really retreat. The alleged reason for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam. That's done. All that is left is to get them stable and get out. Second, part of Muslim culture is to always show strength. They claim 12,000 "troops" there, but I don't really buy it. It's propaganda designed to make us scared of them. And obvious, at least is your case, it's worked. They are terrorists, spreading fear is how they think the win. Third, they are "cheering" for the Democrats because they hate Bush. They wrongly assume that because the Democrats oppose Bush, they must be better for them. They don't really understand our system or the concept of a "loyal opposition." Fourth, even if we really were fighting actual Al-Queda in Iraq, it is not a war we are wining or one we are likely to win. When fighting terrorists, you don't want to be sitting ducks and that is what we are in Iraq. If it's retreat at all, it is tactical retreat designed to change the battle field. Let's use our special forces to go find them and make the the target instead of letting them make our soldiers the target. Fifth, the ones in Iraq are not the ones that threaten us. It's the guys hiding in caves in Afghanistan who are planing attacks on Americans in America that really worry me.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,700
Reaction score
6,750
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
Then why do Democrats propose retreating from the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighting our troops in Iraq? I'm not posing this as anything other than a very concerned citizen. Yes, I'm Republican, but, I'm scared to death with Al Qeada claiming all of this stuff and these "troops" in Iraq and the Democrats proposing retreat. As an American, regardless of party, this is very concerning. I just don't want us to send the wrong message, in light of the fact that we are, pretty much, already fighting Al Qaeda one on one and that is why it is so ugly. The suicide bombings, roadside bombings, kidnappings, etc., are hallmark occurrences that reveal, we are already one on one with the enemy and it seems that some are proposing retreating from this type of warfare, when, in reality, this it the type of warfare the enemy is offering and they have already publicly claimed that we could not stand up to this type of warfare. Does retreat reveal that it is simply too ugly and too much for us?
Maybe because occupying a Muslim country served to only give Al-Queda a playground to attack our troops in a Guerilla war?

There won't be any "message" sent to AQ if the U.S retreats from Iraq--if U.S. troops leave Iraq, well it leaves one less place or opportunity for AQ to attack our troops. Right now, they're sitting ducks in a veritable shooting gallery for RPG attacks, roadside bombs, etc.

The message actually might be fear. Occupying Iraq is not benefiting the war on terror. It is actually producing more terrorists, and providing AQ the perfect circumstances to attack our troops--who are mostly acting as policemen.

This idea that somehow withdrawing from Iraq would be retreating from the "war on terror" is specious.

And the Dems have not advocated completely pulling out.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom