It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War Machine marches on, Syria is next.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

If they aren't a military threat, then why are they winning? The insergentancy keeps getting more effective and causing more havok now than when the war started. It doesn't matter if they don't fight the troops head on, it's called warfare.


A military threat can actually beat you militarily, not just scare politicians at home. What they're doing doesn't even scratch the American war machine. A thousand soldiers is nothing to America's military.


They're not winning. No slight to the men fighting out there- I know many of them personally- but we've seen casualties worse than this during cease fires in other wars.
Strategically speaking, this isn't Vietnam. We can win this one because they don't have the internal or external support, nor the infrastructure.
Tactically speaking, we're turning it into Vietnam. If it weren't for the "scared politicians" at home the pentagon could handle these people. Remember, occupation missions used to be carried out with success on a regular basis. All it takes is a little heavy-handedness.




So much for the War on Drugs eh? Hardly a good reason to allow them to traffic drugs "for their economy" you know the CIA trafficks drugs right?


You know, you just repeated the statement I addressed. We ARE doing something about the Opium. Just destroy a bunch of poor farmer's fields won't get the job done, though. Teaching them to grow other things is far more effective and helpful for everyone.


Don't be too much of an idealist. The GDP of Afghanistan jumped nearly 50% when we started counting the opium trade in that number. If our puppets can sell drugs to other nations we don't like and make money for it that's fine- just see that it never makes it to our country. At least that's the political way of looking at it.




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
They're not winning. No slight to the men fighting out there- I know many of them personally- but we've seen casualties worse than this during cease fires in other wars.

Strategically speaking, this isn't Vietnam. We can win this one because they don't have the internal or external support, nor the infrastructure.
Tactically speaking, we're turning it into Vietnam. If it weren't for the "scared politicians" at home the pentagon could handle these people. Remember, occupation missions used to be carried out with success on a regular basis. All it takes is a little heavy-handedness.


I never said anything about who was or wasn't winning. Militarily they could not do much damage to us. That's the only point I care to argue at this point.


Don't be too much of an idealist. The GDP of Afghanistan jumped nearly 50% when we started counting the opium trade in that number. If our puppets can sell drugs to other nations we don't like and make money for it that's fine- just see that it never makes it to our country. At least that's the political way of looking at it.


Those farmers had nothing else to grow without the Opium. Those crops could be more productive if they produced actual food for their people.

The politicians do have enough reason to want this to stop. It doesn't do all that much good for the people of Afghanistan. It makes America look bad. It's better for the economy for them to produce other things. It will help stabalize the nation.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I've got to humbly disagree. Landmines are not intelligent devices- they kill indiscriminately and can be easily defeated by the enemy. I would be nervous doing it, but if I really had to, I could cross a minefield. I would be willing to risk it simply because that's my best bet of getting through an area undetected and unexpected.


Believe or not, I'm actually glad that someone posted this viewpoint, because it is very similar to mine. Well the first part anyways, I don't think I've be brave enough to cross a minefield. Thats why I prefaced the whole thing, I just thought it was an interesting idea, and feasible.

I know you don't need the mines, all I'm saying is the US govt have simply reserved the option to use them, if they deem it necessary. I was trying to think of the problem from the perspective of what the US could do, without breaking any international laws, to close that border and not have to bring more soldiers over, and protecting them from having people cross over to help blow people up. And I would hope that if the US did use landmines that in the interest of the people of the area, they would clean them up after, or could develop the kind Shadow spoke of.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Disturbed- I was backing you up. My points were to counter the quotes you were responding to.


Originally posted by Duzey
Believe or not, I'm actually glad that someone posted this viewpoint, because it is very similar to mine. Well the first part anyways, I don't think I've be brave enough to cross a minefield. Thats why I prefaced the whole thing, I just thought it was an interesting idea, and feasible.


Mines aren't all their cracked up to be. All infantrymen learn how to probe a minefield in the USMC. It's slow and dangerous work, but if you do it right and nothing goes wrong (like a booby-trapped or damaged mine which is more sensitive than you expect), you can slowly work your way through a minefield without hitting any and even removing a few if need be.

Mines are good for slowing down major enemy movements in places where the enemy can't afford to slow down (like right in front of your fighting position). They are also really good for killing tons and tons of innocent civilians after the war; there's very little which does this job as effectively as mines. Thats all they do though.



I know you don't need the mines, all I'm saying is the US govt have simply reserved the option to use them, if they deem it necessary. I was trying to think of the problem from the perspective of what the US could do, without breaking any international laws, to close that border and not have to bring more soldiers over, and protecting them from having people cross over to help blow people up.


I see your point. I tend to disregard the letter of the law when it comes to international law- I place a lot of weight on the spirit of the law and the moral precedents set by domestic laws. Mines are bad- even if America reserves the right to use them. I don't think we should use them and I think we can do a better job without them if Washington would get off it's lazy arse and get into this war with our men.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Mines aren't all their cracked up to be. All infantrymen learn how to probe a minefield in the USMC. It's slow and dangerous work, but if you do it right and nothing goes wrong (like a booby-trapped or damaged mine which is more sensitive than you expect), you can slowly work your way through a minefield without hitting any and even removing a few if need be.


This is a very good point. I guess I was working on assumption that they would not be as well trained in these things as the US is
And the international law part was more in the spirit of what you could actually get away with, and not have anyone be able to complain that you were breaking any sort of law.

edited to add that I agree that mines are bad and I wish nobody used them, but I'm not in charge of the military


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Actually, it's the most restrained superpower in World history. The US can't even compare (as far as bloodshed) to the Greek, Roman, British, etc. empires.

RESTRAINED?
oh that is a joke. so you feel "restrained" dont you? you have such military power and can not use it alot huh? so much unused ammunition and so many ships and tanks and airplanes, that they cant just "sit and wait"?
so you want to compare with "great empires"? as i have told before, your american nations is very YOUNG, historicaly speaking. your "war phase" is not over yet. its like puberty for the nations, they have to fight wars and win and loose them at some point in their "life". and america has tasted only few wars, compared to veterans like europe, middle east, asia etc. THEY are the real war veterans. and i belive they have finally learned something from this lesson in history.
but then again, humanity has an extremly stupid and self-destructive nature.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Do you honestly believe the majority of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis fighting for their own land?
Of course they're not, that's why they have no problem blowing up police officers and army recruits (protecters of Iraqis).
Do you honestly believe that Iraqis are blowing themselves up and hundreds of others because they believe that the best way to stabalize the country is to disrupt elections and cause havoc?
Get real...

yes i belive that the MAJORITY of insurgents are fighting for freedom and better life in the OWN land. i belive that there are man and woman who have said, this is enaugh, and are taking the power back in their hands. ofcourse there are several extremist groups, and several "special forces units" from the saddams regime (or did you forget about 20.000 special forces known as fedajeen) operating in this area, just because they are "eager" to destroy the american invading forces. in is a big mess down there. and it would be very hard to separate one group from the other.
if you ask me, u.s. forces can never win against a struggle like that. you know why? because it will just get bloodier and things will just get more complicated. the "rebels" will invent more and more deadlier bombs to stop the enemy armour and infantry, and when the airstrikes begin they will simply hide underground in the vast complex of bunkers and tunnels.

well, you will learn sooner or later.
i just "hope" you dont lear too late...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
RESTRAINED?
oh that is a joke. so you feel "restrained" dont you? you have such military power and can not use it alot huh? so much unused ammunition and so many ships and tanks and airplanes, that they cant just "sit and wait"?
so you want to compare with "great empires"? as i have told before, your american nations is very YOUNG, historicaly speaking. your "war phase" is not over yet.

Restrained compared to other superpowers, yes. There is no way of disputing that.
And we have much deadlier weapons than they had.



and america has tasted only few wars, compared to veterans like europe, middle east, asia etc. THEY are the real war veterans.

Again, it's because of restraint we have seen few wars. The world is also much smaller now, everyone is connected.
The US can expand as it wishes if it wanted too. But it doesn't, I mean, Peurto Rico and Guam haven't even become States yet.




yes i belive that the MAJORITY of insurgents are fighting for freedom and better life in the OWN land.


Well, that's your opinion. I'm going by what the Iraqis have said in that the majority of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Sure there are a few who are, but the ones doing the majority of the kidnappings and the suicide bombs against the Iraqi people, I highly doubt those are the Iraqis doing that.


i belive that there are man and woman who have said, this is enaugh, and are taking the power back in their hands.


Good, the U.S. could use thier help! I hope too that Iraqis have had enough of the violence. I hope too that they realize that it's going to be up to them to take back their land, especially once the US takes an even more secondary role.

Most people fail to realize that besides the Fallujah offensive and a few other raids, the US and Iraqi forces have militarily been operating in a defensive role. Read and react if you will. If you've been paying close attention you would know that with a few exceptions it has been we have been in a they attack we react mode (one of the main reasons why our casualty rate has gone up so much), not the other way around for about a year now.



the "rebels" will invent more and more deadlier bombs to stop the enemy armour and infantry, and when the airstrikes begin they will simply hide underground in the vast complex of bunkers and tunnels.


They don't want the violence to stop then? You're telling me they would rather live in a war torn country than give that democracy thing a shot?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The obvious concern is "what if they start a ground war?". That is what I was addressing. The answer is we can handle it, but it wouldn't be pretty.

Nope, but I seriously doubt they would do that. And there is no indication they will.




What if somebody invaded America? I'd kill Americans who volunteered for the military force organized by our occupier. I'd boycott elections held by our occupier because I wouldn't want to legitimize a rigged election.

But they're not voulunteering for the American military force, they're volunteering (important word) for the IRAQI military and police force. Once the "occupiers" leave they will be the ones protecting Iraqis. I highly doubt they're joining their own military for evil intent. I believe they really want to get the country back at square one. If you were them would you want to rely on Americans or other Iraqis?

As far as elections, well you have to start somewhere. You can't not have a ruler forever. Boycotting does nothing to get your country back on it's foot again. It may not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction. Especially when the intent of the occupiers was not to occupy permenately.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
yes i belive that the MAJORITY of insurgents are fighting for freedom and better life in the OWN land. i belive that there are man and woman who have said, this is enaugh, and are taking the power back in their hands...


Why weren't they saying "This is enough!" during Saddam Heussein's 25 year reign of terror?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
They did.. or at least tried.

Two major uprisings both crushed by him. One using chemical weapons one using convential weapons. Both times he spared no one and ordered the families of anyone involved killed also.

Many many times singular or small groups of people tried to step up. Why do you think there were mass graves?


Saddam was very evil, but if you had people coming into your house anytime they pleased pushing you around and telling you to sit down and shut up. What would you think? That is how we look for "terrorists" these days. While I do agree its EXTREMLEY restrained and we dont have much choice at this point I also concede that it would and will piss off those it affects. It more then likely has caused many normal non-combatants to pick up a gun or bomb. What if you hear stories about soldiers raping stealing and killing in your home country mercilessly? (Even if they arent true) What would you do if you continuously hear about innocents getting blown to bits when a "terrorist" hideout is bombed?

All I'm saying is step back and look at it from their side. Whether we are trying to help them or not is becomming a moot point. More and more Iraqi's are viewing us as the terrorists.

In the end public opinion of the Iraqi's will determine the outcome of this war. Not US Force, US Weapons, or US Politics.

Again I state I beleive we have to stay our course there, but its naive to beleive that we arent alienating more and more innocent civilians every time we enter a house, kill the wrong person (hell even killing the right one), or bombing somewhere. It doesnt matter if the people we kill are terrorists they have families and friends. Many times family and friends will stand up for someone even if they know that person is wrong.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The one thing you forgot to mention is when the revolts took place. They were during the Gulf War, when the Iraqis expected and wanted American help...



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The one thing you forgot to mention is when the revolts took place. They were during the Gulf War, when the Iraqis expected and wanted American help...


And they stood upon the sands when America pulled back as their hopes were slowly vanishing into dust like a dream one might see in a heat wave of a mirage, it was there, but it slipped away. Lost in thought gripping the reality and a heartache. The childern who were told in silence they will help, now feel it was a fairy tale. Tomorrow will be another day of dreams and keep looking into the sky for any signs that we might be real.

Thank you Deliverer for your posts I have read. AYE, you are most welcome aboard the Ancient Isles. Good dreams.................
The Ancient Sailor

As for Syria, they can not be trust even if they signed a peace treaty. We have weapons that can take them out without sending troops in.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by ancientsailor]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The obvious concern is "what if they start a ground war?". That is what I was addressing. The answer is we can handle it, but it wouldn't be pretty.

Nope, but I seriously doubt they would do that. And there is no indication they will.


Not on their own accord, but if we start bombing them or trying to support any means of regime change- or if they even get afraid that we might- then the smart move for them is to beat us to the punch. We're talking about war by miscalculation.
If America is aggressive and they over-estimate our intentions, they would be crazy to just sit back and wait for us to smash them.




What if somebody invaded America? I'd kill Americans who volunteered for the military force organized by our occupier. I'd boycott elections held by our occupier because I wouldn't want to legitimize a rigged election.

But they're not voulunteering for the American military force, they're volunteering (important word) for the IRAQI military and police force.
Just because you call it Iraqi doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't make them think of it that way. If it is seen as the army of a puppet government, what then? Iraqi perception of American intent is more important than Americas real intent as far as analysis of their future actions is concerned.



Once the "occupiers" leave they will be the ones protecting Iraqis. I highly doubt they're joining their own military for evil intent.

The ones who join see it as a good thing, just the way you're talking about. The ones who don't join think that those who do are fools being used as pawns of the occupier. They don't think we ever plan on leaving, except if we establish a puppet gov't. Thats why they're fighting. I dont take their side, but I understand it. They're doing the same thing I'd do if I was in their position with the perception that they have.



I believe they really want to get the country back at square one. If you were them would you want to rely on Americans or other Iraqis?

Iraqis, but only Iraqis who weren't under the control of Americans. That means the insurgents and the terrorists. They think they can back the terrorists today then take their country back from the terrorists once America is gone. Thats why there appears to be widespread support for terrorists even though they are actually a radical fringe.



As far as elections, well you have to start somewhere. You can't not have a ruler forever. Boycotting does nothing to get your country back on it's foot again. It may not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction. Especially when the intent of the occupiers was not to occupy permenately.

They think that the America supervised elections will be unfair. If nothing else they would probably like to have an impartial 3rd party come in and handle it. They think the best way they can get that is by making a very public showing that this election doesn't represent them. They can't do what the people of Ukraine did because of our military presence, but they can boycott the vote to deligitimize the election.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I think anyone who defends the insurgents is making one big mistake - they assume these really are normal Iraqis.

Are some undoubtedly normal Iraqis who fear America? Yes. Most? Probably not. Most are probably just those who received favor under Saddam. How many insurgents are former Republican Guard, or other Saddam loyalists?

Most aren't fighting for a free Iraq, but Saddam's Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join