Solution to the War on Terror - Page 4

raytri · #31 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 02:35 PM

I might have been unclear. I only prefer a draft over the mercenary route. If we can meet our defense needs with an all-volunteer force, that's best.

Although I've said before that some sort of national service requirement would be fine by me.

JP5 · #32 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 02:37 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.

So....then you're saying we shouldn't even have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the training camps, killed Taliban, or gone after al Qaeda militarily? Even after they came into OUR country, used 4 commercial jets as huge bombs to kill thousands of our citizens?

raytri · #33 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

So....then you're saying we shouldn't even have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the training camps, killed Taliban, or gone after al Qaeda militarily? Even after they came into OUR country, used 4 commercial jets as huge bombs to kill thousands of our citizens?

Nope. Supported that.

In Afghanistan we toppled a nation-state that was harboring terrorists that had attacked us. The war was just and the military applicability clear.

But you'll notice it didn't defeat terrorism.

The military should be a component, but not the main component, of our anti-terror toolbox. Special forces are military, and they're backed up by airplanes, naval interdiction, etc. But the proper frame of reference is law enforcement, not war. Targeted strikes, not invasion and occupation. Get the terrorists, not create more of them while tying down our forces in unrelated conflicts.

Se7ven · #34 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

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."

Ok then...we shouldn't be hearing from any Bush apologists and pro-war people saying that we should just go over there and blow the place to smitherines and kill all the radical muslims and do to them what they do to us. You know, like lobbing off their heads?....because it ain't gonna happen, this war will go on forever and ever amen, it will NEVER be won and it just proves that the Bush apologists don't WANT it to end.

I also don't EVER want to hear that we are fighting a different kind of war...because, as you've said, we can't fight the war they are fighting against us. Our soldiers can't treat the the way they treat us.

Now, if you'd all just admit...you all like things going the way they are...NOWHERE. At least if you all can't be honest with the people who disagree with you...be honest to yourselves.

By not fighting the war and killing the terrorists and putting the fear of our country into them...we are just lame sitting ducks...waiting to be picked off. Of course since it's not the Bush apologists who are over there dying for no reason...what the heck do they care? Have it your way...Bushies want war forever without winning.

WhiteJackel · #35 (**permalink**) 08-21-2006, 05:50 PM

Divide the country into its three respective national, religious and ethnic communities. Turn each over to a U.S.-friendly potentate, and RUN LIKE HELL.

hobo · #36 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

So....then you're saying we shouldn't even have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the training camps, killed Taliban, or gone after al Qaeda militarily? Even after they came into OUR country, used 4 commercial jets as huge bombs to kill thousands of our citizens?

It is only common sense to use the type of force that is best suited for the terrain and environment were the battle is being fought. Al Qaeda did not use military equipment to attack the US, they used covert action to hijack commercial airlines - one of the ways in which it is possible to cause large scale damage. Afghanistan is one of the most hostile environments in the world to fight a war. Even Alexander the Great did not succeed in conquering this country. Paid informants, coupled with other covert activity, high tech spying equipment and vehicles that can maneuver in mountain terrain are appropriate for such a fight. It is a different kind of war, and you need a different approach to finding combatants that are hidden in tunnels deep in the mountains. Our conventional military is almost useless there - as we have seen.

Afghanistan is also a perfect example of how hiring local men to act as mercenaries did not work - when it comes to killing, people of the same nation generally do not like to kill each other for money.

Se7ven · #37 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobo";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

So....then you're saying we shouldn't even have gone into Afghanistan and destroyed the training camps, killed Taliban, or gone after al Qaeda militarily? Even after they came into OUR country, used 4 commercial jets as huge bombs to kill thousands of our citizens?

It is only common sense to use the type of force that is best suited for the terrain and environment were the battle is being fought. Al Qaeda did not use military equipment to attack the US, they used covert action to hijack commercial airlines - one of the ways in which it is possible to cause large scale damage. Afghanistan is one of the most hostile environments in the world to fight a war. Even Alexander the Great did not succeed in conquering this country. Paid informants, coupled with other covert activity, high tech spying equipment and vehicles that can maneuver in mountain terrain are appropriate for such a fight. It is a different kind of war, and you need a different approach to finding combatants that are hidden in tunnels deep in the mountains. Our conventional military is almost useless there - as we have seen.

Afghanistan is also a perfect example of how hiring local men to act as mercenaries did not work - when it comes to killing, people of the same nation generally do not like to kill each other for money.

Another excellent rebuttal!
As with Saddam and so many others tyrants we supported in the past when we give them US made weapons and support...they beat us by using our OWN "weapons" against us.

The same will happen with the Iraqis we are training...before this is over, they will be using OUR weapons and our techniques AGAINST us. Happens every time.

bushndick · #38 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Se7ven";p=&quot

use the money we're spending on nation building to pay private groups who train and use mercenaries.

Send out the mercenaries, no uniforms, just big guns and any other devices they'd need to get the job done and let them go. Let them abuse, torture and do everything else the terrorists do...tit for tat. NO repercussions for fighting fire with fire.

and who do you think does all the bombing in Iraq now? the Iraqis or Iranians?

hey i have another idea: lets kidnap john bennet ramsay and hold her for ransom...

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