Solution to the War on Terror - Page 3

africanhope · #21 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 09:09 AM

This sending in guns for hire, is this not part of the causes of the current problem? Was the Taliban, and Al-queida not funded and armed like this, as many rebel groups in Africa that used to fight for other countries in proxy wars?

hobo · #22 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 09:32 AM

That's right... we hired the Taliban as mercenaries to fight the Russians in Pakistan. We gave them all sorts of high tech weapons, which they are using today to fight against us.

Se7ven · #23 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

It's not our job to imposes a form of government on a people who don't want it.

Again, you don't mind them SPEAKING for themselves, do you?

It seems 12+ MILLION of them do indeed WANT Democracy, given they went to the POLLS even under the threat of DEATH!

Regards,
Gaar

LOL, 12 million did NOT vote and the vote was NOT for democracy but who they want to lead their parties. Had they all voted for democracy, they wouldn't be falling into a civil war as we speak. Nice try though.

Turnout was 58 percent of registered voters.

Of about 8.56 million votes cast in the election, the UIA received 4.08 million, the combined Kurdish parties garnered 2.17 million and the Iraqi list of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi got 1.17 million.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/

Se7ven · #24 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

ALWAYS with the name calling from conservatives, why is that?

So as to distinguish a "Loony Liberal" from a TRUE Liberal. I don't want to disrespect people that I admire by associating them with people like yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

The reason our military is on trial is because of the rules of war. We do NOT abide by them and tell me, how many of them are getting the death penalty or life in prison for murdering and torture?

Sure we do, that is why we PROSECUTE people who do such things, and they are a VERY SMALL percentage of those who Serve.

That people, like you, try and make them ALL to be "like that" says much more about YOU than it does them...

And you wonder why I call you a Loony Liberal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

I love my country and I love and respect our military

And YOU show that love and respect by calling them murderers and the like?!?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

Come on Conservatives, if you REALLY want to win the war on terror, then admit we need to FIGHT it on a level playing field. Be American patriots, bring our kids home and let the killing machines kill the terrorists.

Yes, I want to WIN this WAR, and I am GLAD we are FINALLY FIGHTING IT with OUR MILITARY!

And Loony Liberals will see in November that the MAJORITY of Americans want to Fight it as well!

We don't want to go back to the Liberal way of ignoring it until they "strike us", and then lob a few Cruise Missiles at them. We need to Fight it with all of the resources we have at our disposal.

Now sure what you don't understand about that?

The funny thing about you Loony Liberals is how you "profess" we need to 'fight fire with fire', but when the President tries some "new things" to try and hunt them down you all go off the deep end about him becoming a tyrant!?!?!?!?

Please make up your minds!

Regards,
Gaar

Hmm, can't use intellect to battle, so you resort to namecalling. How lame that is.

What has Bush tried or said he wants to try that is different from what we're doing? As a matter of fact, he says he will NOT change course. He has NOT tried using mercenaries to fight fire with fire.

Oh, I've not called our soldiers murderers, I said there are many of them being TRIED in military courts for murder and this can be eliminated if we use a mercenary force.

I'm trying to keep our Americans alive and you are saying that by not trying something else, you would rather they keep on being sitting ducks for terrorists. I might be a loony liberal in your mind, but I couldn't even post on a board what people such as yourself are for allowing and condoning our soldiers to get murdered by terrorists.

If you TRULY wanted to win the war on terror....you would advocate mercenary justice and save our sons and daughters to live another day to protect our own shores.

raytri · #25 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 01:19 PM

Just as a historical/philosphical aside, reliance on mercenary armies is what marked the decay and downfall of the Roman empire and the Italian city states of the Renaissance. It snapped a vital band between the citizens and the system that kept them safe and comfortable. And it placed their security in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation being defended. Mercenaries could a did switch sides in order to save their skins or their fortunes. Mercenaries could and did turn on their employers if those employers ran out of money.

Admittedly, mercenaries have more valiant examples in history, too. They aided both Alexander the Great and his opponent, Darius; they helped the French win the Hundred Years War. But in a democracy, reliance on mercenaries is a bad sign, IMO. I'd prefer a draft. It's just more democratic, if not more capitalistic.

Se7ven · #26 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Just as a historical/philosphical aside, reliance on mercenary armies is what marked the decay and downfall of the Roman empire and the Italian city states of the Renaissance. It snapped a vital band between the citizens and the system that kept them safe and comfortable. And it placed their security in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation being defended. Mercenaries could a did switch sides in order to save their skins or their fortunes. Mercenaries could and did turn on their employers if those employers ran out of money.

Admittedly, mercenaries have more valiant examples in history, too. They aided both Alexander the Great and his opponent, Darius; they helped the French win the Hundred Years War. But in a democracy, reliance on mercenaries is a bad sign, IMO. I'd prefer a draft. It's just more democratic, if not more capitalistic.

I would agree with you if we were in a declared war against a nation where all nations involved in the war are fighting according to the rules of war. Our president says, and Rumsfeld says, and also Condi Rice says that this is a DIFFERENT kind of war a war that we've never had to fight before.

Desperate and trying times demands desperate means. We have the means to fight this kind of war. We NEED to strike a blow to terrorism.

We use mercenaries in other areas where we can't send our military to clean things up nice and tidy.

If there EVER was a time to use mercenaries it would be with terrorists.

raytri · #27 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 01:37 PM

For an occupation a la Iraq, you don't need elite troops; you just need LOTS of troops.

For the wider war on terror, military force is not really the point. A robust special forces capacity, coupled with beefed up intelligence-gathering, would let us cut off terrorist financing, disrupt terrorist plans and go in and kill actual terrorists in targeted raids.

Bush's big mistake, of which Iraq was his piece de resistance, was to think that terrorism was a military problem. It's not. No amount of artillery or tanks will ever defeat terrorism. It was a dumb thing to try.

Se7ven · #28 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

For an occupation a la Iraq, you don't need elite troops; you just need LOTS of troops.

For the wider war on terror, military force is not really the point. A robust special forces capacity, coupled with beefed up intelligence-gathering, would let us cut off terrorist financing, disrupt terrorist plans and go in and kill actual terrorists in targeted raids.

Bush's big mistake, of which Iraq was his piece de resistance, was to think that terrorism was a military problem. It's not. No amount of artillery or tanks will ever defeat terrorism. It was a dumb thing to try.

EXACTLY, that's why I propose we use a mercenary force. It's NOT a military problem and we don't have the troops to send all over the world anymore. They are worn out and getting killed and permantly maimed for life. We need terrorist killers over there who can kill with no restraints on how they kill a terrorist.

What Bush is doing isn't working. There are more terrorists NOW than before this started. For every one we kill MORE than one joins them. We are GROWING terrorism NOT defeating it. As Dr. Phil would say, "how's that workin' for ya?"

Answer...it ain't workin well at all.

raytri · #29 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

We need terrorist killers over there who can kill with no restraints on how they kill a terrorist.

Nope. I'm with Gaar on this one; we don't win by becoming what we're fighting.

I'm confident terrorism will never beat us as long as we don't let it. And by "don't let it" I include more than physical safety; I include "not significantly altering our culture because of pressure from terrorists."

JP5 · #30 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Just as a historical/philosphical aside, reliance on mercenary armies is what marked the decay and downfall of the Roman empire and the Italian city states of the Renaissance. It snapped a vital band between the citizens and the system that kept them safe and comfortable. And it placed their security in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation being defended. Mercenaries could a did switch sides in order to save their skins or their fortunes. Mercenaries could and did turn on their employers if those employers ran out of money.

Admittedly, mercenaries have more valiant examples in history, too. They aided both Alexander the Great and his opponent, Darius; they helped the French win the Hundred Years War. But in a democracy, reliance on mercenaries is a bad sign, IMO. I'd prefer a draft. It's just more democratic, if not more capitalistic.

Great post and I totally agree.....except for the draft part at the end. We don't need that......yet, but may someday. Who knows. I sure hope not. I think it's much better to have an all volunteer army. And that seems to be working for the moment.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode