meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 BigDuke6, Before you advocate such a rash course of action, I suggest you look at what the military who would be tasked with such a task thinks about the chances of success. Hint... on the whole they don't think it's a good idea. But using meade95's logic, we don't need to trust what the military has to say about it. Political dogma is enough. Steve This really isn't a fair overview..... not at all true in total - There are plenty within the Military that advocate such - Perhaps not within all the HQs of the Big Green.....but in other brances (those that would actually be going in most likely for such *raids*) are very much in favor of doing such. I have a family member in the USN (Teams) and in albeit limited conversations to a degree....he has more than openly stated the desire by many within the community for more DA Ops within such places.....and that there is a constant struggle between those within the military (shooters) and those HQ elements / JAGs which are much more risk adverse...... Of course there is also the relaity that the Big Green doesn't like when others are in charge (one reason Rumsfeld was disliked so much by some in the HQ elements was for making SOCOM its own branch)....but there are plenty that want to hit into Pak border regions and targets in Syria where appropriate....(without the need for holding ground / large ground forces). And yes, such raids can be effective.......and plenty within the military think so. And oh come on Steve - The one who constantly talks about *others* political dogmas...is the one who comes with the political slant. That is beyond obvious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 *ahem* Do you remember this? ... "experts" love to have mental circle jerks more than actually accomplishing anything ... has been my experience and observation in life ... They love to be monday morning QBs even more ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Do you hate all "experts", or just those who disagree with you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Alan8325, In the grand scheme of things, yes. There was a replacement for Zarqawi, there will be a replacement for Bin Laden, there will be a replacement for whoever it was who was killed in Syria. With that said, killing/capturing does work as a tactical obstacle to the enemy in the short term. Absolutely. I don't think I've ever heard anybody, even on the left, suggest that kinetic solutions don't have a role to play here. The issues are when, how, and how much. The military guys I respect, the ones who have been calling things correctly since before Iraq started, certainly believe that when you can you should hit hard. But any grand strategy that relies primarily on kinetic solutions will ultimately fail. In regard to our dependence on foreign oil, I agree with Pickens and others that it is currently one of the biggest, if not THE biggest problem our country faces, both economically and in foreign policy. The Pentagon recently declared dependence on foreign oil to be the most significant threat to national security. Of course, these are the same liberal eco nazis that also say global climate change is a security concern Having said that, I would actually rather see the U.S. TAKE foreign oil right now, as opposed to buying it, before we significantly tap into our own oil supplies. You think we are hated now, imagine what the jihadist movement would look like then! I agree, but mostly because there's no alternative replacement for oil. So we should be using the precious, limited, expensive resource very carefully while we pour major resources into figuring out how to get ourselves off of it as a fuel. If China and India what to have fun with the Jihadists, fine by me. meade95, Steve - Lets cut the "expert" BS - It is you that brought up "experts" to begin with and ridiculously boasted in a sense that "all experts" agree with you..... Please. And you didn't really do much to challenge that "ridiculous" claim, did you? (those that would actually be going in most likely for such *raids*) These are the same guys that argued that the war was going fine and Bush shouldn't be questioned? Hey, it's normal for soldiers at the front to think kinetic thoughts... it's what they are all about. I don't blame them one bit. It's also natural for 18, 19, 20, etc. year olds to think that the quickest way to victory is to hit harder. And I'm damned glad to have them ready when the orders come to do just that. But I doubt there are many PFCs and Lance Corporals I would want in charge of national policy. one reason Rumsfeld was disliked so much by some in the HQ elements was for making SOCOM its own branch That and being obviously incompetent. I don't even want to know what mess we'd be in if he had got his way of going into Iraq with something like the 60,000 troops he wanted. And get out of here Steve - The one who constantly talks about *others* political dogmas...is the one who comes with the political slant. That is beyond obvious. I have no political bias; I think both parties are equally incompetent and the supposed alternative parties hopelessly irrelevant My only interest is getting this country, and by extension the world, on the right track. There's only so much I myself can do about that, of course. One thing I did was pull all my money out of the stock market about 4 years ago. That's because the experts I listened to said we were headed for the meltdown that we're now in. And why did I listen to those experts and not all the idiots that said the rollercoaster ride only goes up? Because I used common sense... I saw people getting houses they couldn't afford, SUVs instead of sensible cars, and flat screen TVs on 18% credit cards. I'm no genius, just observant. Normal Dude, Do you hate all "experts", or just those who disagree with you? And who does one go to for enlightenment if the "experts" are not to be trusted? As I said earlier, when I want my taxes done right I go to an accountant and not to a plumber. Going to overtly biased political sources is useful for helping form an opinion, but if I read one side's view I try very hard to read the other side's as well. Chances are they are both wrong and both right in their own ways. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloko Mac Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 Wow, from what I read from certain people here, I can see misinformation about Muslim culture has worked great ! As a non US citizen and a guy lucky enough to have : 1- lived in the US for a good amount of time and 2-travelled a lot in Europe, South America and living between France and West Africa now ...I would like to tell you that you dont have so many friends out there, Maybe question your politicians why (starting with Bush family). You are waisting billions of $ every month to "protect your citizens" but everyday you have more ennemies...something's wrong IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssiissuu Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 The reality is since the war in Iraq / removal of Saddam.... more on the muslim street are turning against AQ/ and their mimics. Polls throughout the ME show this..... It was a boom for recruiting in the short-run.....but a majority of those recruits are all dead now. A whole segment of a generation is gone....dead. Years and years of terrorist leadership is likewise captured or dead...... These results are a net positive for the world. meade95, at least one other person has asked that you post your sources on the decline of a militant Islam. I find myself rather curious as well, would you mind posting 'em or linking us to specific articles? Thanks in advance, I'm sure the read is a fascinating one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95, at least one other person has asked that you post your sources on the decline of a militant Islam. I find myself rather curious as well, would you mind posting 'em or linking us to specific articles? Thanks in advance, I'm sure the read is a fascinating one. 95: You also ignored my request for evidence. You claimed it, back it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I would just like to add that of course Oil is the cause of all of this. If the ME didn't have any oil then the West would happily sit by and let them kill themselves, Israel included since we would have no need for a strong ally in the region. If you have any doubts about this just look at Africa, or even the Balkans. There are genocides and ethnic cleansings that the West is perfectly willing to overlook because they don't threaten any of our vital interests. Please don't bother citing the feeble efforts of the EU and NATO in the Balkans or the UN/US in Somalia. If there was any actual interest in either of those areas the West would have gone in like A-stan or Iraq. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 [quote I have no political bias; I think both parties are equally incompetent and the supposed alternative parties hopelessly irrelevant My only interest is getting this country, and by extension the world, on the right track. There's only so much I myself can do about that, of course. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted October 27, 2008 Author Share Posted October 27, 2008 I would just like to add that of course Oil is the cause of all of this. If the ME didn't have any oil then the West would happily sit by and let them kill themselves, Israel included since we would have no need for a strong ally in the region. If you have any doubts about this just look at Africa, or even the Balkans. There are genocides and ethnic cleansings that the West is perfectly willing to overlook because they don't threaten any of our vital interests. Please don't bother citing the feeble efforts of the EU and NATO in the Balkans or the UN/US in Somalia. If there was any actual interest in either of those areas the West would have gone in like A-stan or Iraq. Actually China has quite an interest in Africa for its oil, among other resources. Their current strategy is to offer infrastructure improvements like roads, bridges, etc. and jobs to locals in return for oil deals. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 And those resources are the only reason you occasionally hear the West talk about improving our relations with the Dark Continent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 meade95, at least one other person has asked that you post your sources on the decline of a militant Islam. I find myself rather curious as well, would you mind posting 'em or linking us to specific articles? Thanks in advance, I'm sure the read is a fascinating one. There are all sorts of Islamic websites / forums you can go read yourself - There are all sorts of Pew Polls and Kempler polling (Sp) which focuses on the ME.... Here is just one example ....of a recent review of attitudes in the ME....Regarding AQ/mimics/Bin laden.......Hell, look at some of Zawahiri's OWN preachers / mentors who have openly turned against him..... This from the Union Leader of all places....(also went out via AP)... al-Qaida on ropes: Monday, Jun. 2, 2008 CIA Director Michael Hayden said last week that al-Qaida is losing its war on the West. Skeptics who don't trust any information that emerges from the lips of a Bush administration official do not have to take Hayden's word to believe the truth of his assessment. The evidence is everywhere. In a Washington Post interview last week, Hayden presented our successes in the War on Terror this way: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaida globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam." That might sound like Bush administration puffery. But days earlier, two New York University researchers wrote a strikingly similar appraisal in the liberal magazine The New Republic. "According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in recent years," wrote Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank. "The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank. Following a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year, support for suicide operations amongst Pakistanis has dropped to 9 percent (it was 33 percent five years ago), while favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, around where he is believed to be hiding, have plummeted to 4 percent from 70 percent since August 2007." On Thursday U.S. commanders announced that Iraq's Diyala province, once a stronghold for al-Qaida in Iraq, was under U.S. and Iraqi control. On May 24 U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said al-Qaida in Iraq was closer to defeat than it has ever been. In mid-May, terrorist attacks in Iraq fell to their lowest level since March 2004. The evidence worldwide strongly suggests that al-Qaida has been decimated by a combination of aggressive action by the United States and its allies and the terrorist organization's own horrific acts. Not only are ordinary Muslims turning against terrorism in droves, but former al-Qaida supporters and trainees have taken to denouncing the group for murdering innocents, especially Muslim ones. Still, Hayden cautions against complacency. "The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where 'safe' is normal," he said. "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours." That's a good way to look at this war, which President Bush said from the start would be long and arduous. It isn't over yet, but the evidence shows that so far we are doing better than the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I have seen several articles about growing grass roots resentment over the image the radicals give to the entire Muslim world. They are usually burried at the back of the paper. I'm not saying I agree with any one opinion put forth here but there are lots of things going on that don't get a lot of press. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 And another from the UK Times ....a la the New Republic of all places.... The New Republic The Unraveling by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank The jihadist revolt against bin Laden. Post Date Wednesday, June 11, 2008 Al-Qaeda: the cracks begin to show A succession of leading Muslim radicals has condemned the terror group’s tactics as its support in Islamic countries falls off dramatically. Is Britain following the pattern? During Friday prayers this weekend, Dr Usama Hasan stood at the pulpit of his Tawhid mosque in Leyton, east London, and delivered a sermon on the sinfulness of alcohol and drugs. It was quite a sedate affair compared with some of the sermons the 36-year-old imam has given. He often uses his platform to rally his congregation against terrorism, condemning Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri as unIslamic criminals. __________________________ And others... Most Saudis Oppose al Qaeda James Joyner | Tuesday, December 18, 2007 A recent survey of Saudi Arabian adults finds a complicated view of America, terrorism, and freedom. Most Saudi Arabia citizens interviewed in a poll oppose terrorism and want closer ties with the United States. But many Saudis remain opposed to making peace with Israel, according to what researchers call an unprecedented survey of the kingdom. Ten percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the al Qaeda terrorist network, according to a survey by Terror Free Tomorrow, an international public opinion research group based in Washington. Fifteen percent said they have a favorable view of al Qaeda’s leader, Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, the poll found. Saudis also have a better opinion of the United States than in other countries in the Muslim world, with 40 percent saying they view the U.S. favorably. That compares to 19 percent in Pakistan, according to a poll taken by the same group in August, and 21 percent of Egyptians, according to a May survey by the Pew Research Center. _______________________ And how about this one from Fareed Zakaria’s article in Newsweek: Al Qaeda Central, by which I mean the dwindling band of brothers on the Afghan-Pakistani border, appears to have turned into a communications company. It’s capable of producing the occasional jihadist cassette, but not actual jihad. … Bin Laden’s most recent appeal is a mishmash of argument and detail, and seems slightly crazed. He has broadened his verbal attacks against the “Zionist-Crusaders” to include the United Nations and China. The latter he condemns because it “represents the Buddhists and Pagans of the world.”Like Hitler crazily declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor, bin Laden is adding to his slew of formidable enemies… ____________ How about this from StrategyPage... Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq. Bin Laden doesn't discuss how the Americans defeated him. It was done with data. Years of collecting data on the bad guys paid off. Month by month, the picture of the enemy became clearer. This was literally the case, with some of the intelligence software that created visual representations of what was known of the enemy, and how reliable it was. The picture was clear enough to maneuver key enemy factions into positions that make them easier to run down. Al Qaeda is under a lot of pressure of late. In addition to defeat in Iraq, the organization is being battered in North Africa, South East Asia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden has not got any good news to talk about, and that's what's really got his followers angry. ____________________ From July of 08 - In a recent thread posted on Al Ekhlaas, the largest Al Qaeda forum on the internet, the author of the thread who is also a very prominent member of the terrorist forum admitted that Al Qaeda main battlefield against the US has now moved from Iraq to Afghanistan. In his thread “Qanas Al Jazeera” said that the so called “Iraqi Resistance”( i.e. Al Qaeda terrorists) is now suffering from a lot of problems that has badly affected their status in Iraq and led to their decline. He went on to explain why the battlefield in Iraq is no more suitable for Al Qaeda terrorists and why Afghanistan is becoming the main theater of war against the US. The thread was written in Arabic and I will post below a partial translation. Also Al Ekhlaas is not an open forum and one must be registered to view the posting. However for the folks who may have access to the terrorist forum here is the link: http://ek-ls.org/forum/showthread.php?t=155079 Beginning of the partial translation: “Date of the thread: June 17 2008. Author: “Qanas Al Jazeera”. A lot of events lead now to the direction that Afghanistan will become the main center to resist the imperial American project after Iraq was the main center of resistance for a period of two years from 2005-2006. There are a lot of subjective and objectives reasons that lead in the direction that Afghanistan and that the strength of Afghani resistance increases each passing day where as the Iraqi resistance suffer from a number of problems that greatly affected it and caused its decline after being so close from achieving a strategic victory against the US….. …The Iraqi resistance has been suffering from division and many factions where they were a lot of Emirs and Emirates in regions where they were not required and with great regret the success of the Americans in penetrating the Sunni ranks who were the main shelter of the resistance and they founded the so called “Awakening Councils” which greatly weakened the resistance and led to its decline….” ____________________ Another - Fascinating: The Jihadists Admit Defeat in Iraq A prolific jihadist sympathizer has posted an ‘explosive’ study on one of the main jihadist websites in which he laments the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in Iraq by citing the steep drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by the various jihadist groups, most notably Al-Qaeda’s 94 percent decline in operational ability over the last 12 months when only a year and half ago Al-Qaeda accounted for 60 percent of all jihadist activity! http://krishna109.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/17/1494468-fascinating-the-jihadists-admit-defeat-in-iraq __________________________ May 27, 2008 Report: al Qaeda Discussing "Why we lost in Iraq" It seems that the jihadis are finally admitting what we've know for months: they've lost in Iraq. It's stunning. Not so much that al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, but that they're online supporters are now admitting it. Just a few months ago my reading of the online discourse was that al Qaeda's fans were in total denial, continuing to call us the "United States of Losers" in Iraq. For any of them to admit defeat is a real victory. If this report is correct, its importance cannot be overstated. Why? Because a key to insurgency recruitment has always been hope for victory. Far fewer people are willing to risk death in a cause they believe they cannot win. Hence, al Qaeda has long pushed propaganda designed to present an image of imminent victory in Iraq. Since so many al Qaeda operatives are always dying, a key to keeping up the fight is in recruiting. But the perception of defeat means far fewer recruits, translating into weaker fighting ability. Strategy Page: Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country. Read the rest. Now that al Qaeda's supporters have admitted to the obvious, will the reality based community on the Left admit we've all but won the war that "couldn't be won"? Don't hold your breath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 As a self-proclaimed lefty, I must say this has been a very interesting and surprising thread. My thoughts, in general, are as follows: The U.S. could accomplish much more in the world using a carrot rather than a stick. The U.S. was one of the major authors of the Nuremberg Principles, and as such should take them seriously as Universal Principles. The U.S. would do well to remember why the USSR dissolved, i.e. unsustainable levels of military spending. The U.S. would do well to heed General/President Eisenhower's farewell address re: the military industrial complex All the oil in U.S. territory, if pumped, will be sold on a global market by global oil companies; oil is a global commodity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 All the oil in U.S. territory, if pumped, will be sold on a global market by global oil companies; oil is a global commodity. Because the US tax code makes it more profitable for US companies to sell US oil and import foreign oil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piispa Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 It just happens to be that the United States is going through the same belligerent period Europe went through a few hundred years ago. USA is a teen needing to show off a bit while Europe has matured and learned the lessons that nothing can be gained by war of aggression. The US is led by fear, while Europe has found the co-operation and co-existance in EU and is consentrating on that ideology on the world politics instead of trying to "get the world on the right track" as Steve put it. You can't force anyone to change their ways of life. Operation Liberty Freedom Justice League - Failed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 How about a couple more polls you asked for (and this was showing the tide turning on AQ and its mimics way back in 06).... All Iraqi Ethnic Groups Overwhelmingly Reject al Qaeda September 27, 2006 But Groups Vary on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah Full Report Questionnaire/Methodology Transcript of Brookings Saban Center Event A new poll of Iraqis shows that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis. Shias have mildly positive views of Iran and its President, while Kurds and Sunnis have strongly negative views. Shias and Kurds have mostly negative views of Syria, while Sunnis are mildly positive. Shias have overwhelmingly positive views of Hezbollah, while Kurds and Sunnis have negative views. The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Ltd. / D3 Systems, Inc. A nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults was surveyed September 1-4. It may be easy to assume that as the Iraqi people become more supportive of attacks on U.S.-led forces (see WPO main article), they may grow warmer toward al Qaeda—the probable source of a significant number of attacks on U.S. forces. However, this does not appear to be the case. Al Qaeda is exceedingly unpopular among the Iraqi people. Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very). Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very). _______________________ Poll: Bin Laden popularity fading in Pakistan updated 6:31 a.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 10, 2008 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Sympathy for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has dropped sharply in Pakistan amid a wave of deadly violence, according to the results of a recent opinion poll. The survey, conducted last month for the U.S.-based Terror Free Tomorrow organization, also identified the party of assassinated opposition leader Benazir Bhutto as the country's most popular ahead of Feb. 18 elections, and said most Pakistanis want President Pervez Musharraf to quit. The poll suggests Pakistanis are looking to peaceful opposition groups after months of political turmoil and a wave of suicide attacks........ According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August. Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent. Support for the Taliban, whose Pakistani offshoots have seized control of much of the lawless border area and have been engaged in a growing war against security forces, dropped by half to 19 percent from 38 percent, the results said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 It just happens to be that the United States is going through the same belligerent period Europe went through a few hundred years ago. USA is a teen needing to show off a bit while Europe has matured and learned the lessons that nothing can be gained by war of aggression. The US is led by fear, while Europe has found the co-operation and co-existance in EU and is consentrating on that ideology on the world politics instead of trying to "get the world on the right track" as Steve put it. You can't force anyone to change their ways of life. Operation Liberty Freedom Justice League - Failed. Umm, I'm sure you know that WW2 was a war of aggression that was started in Europe, by Europeans, less than a few hundred years ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piispa Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Umm, I'm sure you know that WW2 was a war of aggression that was started in Europe, by Europeans, less than a few hundred years ago? Sure, which were the final push to make European leaders understand that that path had no future. But what I ment was the imperialistic period of European history, which the US is mimicing currently, spreading its influence sphere globally by force. Europe learned the hard way the errors of that kind of world politics, US is still learning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Mead95, you do realize that Al-Qaeda isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, right? That it's a small organization that literally has little to no offensive capability at this time, and that it's purpose is no longer on the carrying out of operations, right? It's all well and good that "Al-Qaeda" and "bin laden" are not liked, but they aren't the only guys out there... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Mead95, you do realize that Al-Qaeda isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, right? That it's a small organization that literally has little to no offensive capability at this time, and that it's purpose is no longer on the carrying out of operations, right? It's all well and good that "Al-Qaeda" and "bin laden" are not liked, but they aren't the only guys out there... And this just happened all on its own, right.....Not because of our offensive actions. Not because we took the fight to them....not because AQ put Iraq as the front line of the WOT...and lost big time. AQ was the most aggressive attacking terrorists organization (on the U.S.) in the world in from the 90's unitl 2001..... today, look how you are speaking about them..... There is hardly much left of them, they're not that important, they're not able to carry out operations, etc,etc..... Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 And this just happened all on its own, right.....Not because of our offensive actions. Not because we took the fight to them....not because AQ put Iraq as the front line of the WOT...and lost big time. AQ was the most aggressive attacking terrorists organization (on the U.S.) in the world in from the 90's unitl 2001..... today, look how you are speaking about them..... There is hardly much left of them, they're not that important, they're not able to carry out operations, etc,etc..... Thank you. Wow, that point totally flew over your head... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Yup, it did! "Mommy, I was playing with fire and the couch caught fire. I've mostly cleaned it up, so can I have a raise in my allowance now?" But meade95, do you understand that you've documented polls about AQ and not Islamic radicalism or even a comparison of the favorability rating of the US now compared to pre-Iraq? So I congratulate you on posting some real information for a change, but you aren't posting relevant information. We all know AQ is "on the ropes", largely because it has decentralized itself due, in part, to crackdown on it. But since AQ itself is, and has always been, a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself, the lack of AQ in and of itself means nothing more than AQ is not as big of a factor now. To use the rapist analogy again, it's akin to bust one of the nastiest serial rapists around this year. Rape has not been eradicated and tomorrow an even worse rapist could show up. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 meade95, Thanks for the laugh - Damn do some people think highly of themselves now don't they. Nope, I don't. I'm just someone who can think for himself and doesn't need to have some blind ideology in my veins to get up in the morning. I might not be able to change the world, but I would like to think that I'm not a lemming going off a cliff either. Might not be a big deal to you, but my 401k plan lost a total of less than 1% of its value since the meltdown, so personally I think it PAYS to question dogma. Back to the oil thing... would you like to revise your incorrect statements about how much good ANWAR drilling will do or how long it will take to make it happen? The difference between someone with a political agenda and someone with an open mind has a lot to do with how that person responds to his "facts" being challenged. So far you've not scored very well. Not that you care, I'm sure, because those with closed minds already know that they are right. Right? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.