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.

 

Use The Big Guns in Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
he is right.....lets put a few morre hundred thousand troops in the mideast and ivade iran and syria and nuke their cities. war done short and simple!!




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
In Vietnam[...]use tactical nuclear weapons, and all the other don'ts that got our troops killed.

Why in the world would you use nukes against a guerilla army?


So once again in Iraq we fight with ouy hands tied. No forays into Syria, Iran and Afganistan.




Way to few troops We need a least another 200,000 more troops

Why?What would they do other than be targets for the insurgency? US troops, person for person, are far far more equipped and better supported than the insurgency. Large Troop numbers will merely make more iraqis angry and seditious, and make more troops targets, without actually accomplishing anything.



if we want to conclude this war with dispatch.

The US is not in Iraq to defeat the insurgency. The US is in iraq to hold off the insurgency, destroy it if it can, but to prepare the way for iraqi units and an iraqi government that will be able to stand up to the thugs.


If the draft is necessary so be it. If we need to pull our troops out of Korea that's fine. They don't seem to want us anyway.

Who cares what they want? Abandoning South Korea would be a terrible geostrategic move. And for what, to have more troops in iraq, miling about and doing noting?


Tactical nukes when necessary.

And shoot them at what? What advantage does a tactical nuke have over convetional arms?



[edit on 23-11-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Jsobecky. You are so right. The insurgents will laugh as we leave with out tails between our legs. Murtha and his lets lose the war pals will be very glad until the insurgents move their operations back to American Soil. America will be in sad shape.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
.K. Forget the nukes if you have no stomach or are politically right about their

Nukes have no tactical value in Iraq. Thats why they aren't used.

There's no tactical value in crossing the border into syria and destroying suspected terrorist enclaves either. It'd create more problems than it'd resolve.

These iraqi insurgents are nothing like the threat that the North Vietnamese were. Going into syria to kill some of them simply wouldn't make any difference, and it would risk war with syria, and if the idea is to win the war, hows that supposed to happen if you start more of a war? Hitting North Vietnamese troops as they streamed into Cambodia would've made sense, following them into it, rather than stopping at some arbitray line while giving chase, would've made sense. But the Iraqi insurgents aren't jumping back and forth between the border like that, on a tactical level. They are crossing it once, on a strategic level. There's no need for brigades of US troops to cross it.

And when a known insurgent gang crosses into syria, you actually think that they aren't sending people, or cruisemissiles or armed drones, in after them?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Yes. Sending trianed SEALS, cruisemissiles and unmaned drones into contested areas is a very good idea. Good thinking! Or were you thinking?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
God bless America. May she not be distroyed from within.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
O.K. Forget the nukes if you have no stomach or are politically right about their use, but let's use the other tactics I suggested. Or is the drafting of 200,000 more troops, going after Syria, Iran and fighting in Packistan just to much for you sensitive tastes. Why do you want our troops to die by the inch and not win by a mile?


You want to lesson deaths of US soldiers by invading 3 more countries?? Man i will put money on it your a relation to Bush... And it has nothing to do with sensitive tastes, just not everyone is keen to see innocent people die in masses as you.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

we use nukes, Al Qaeda pretty much can use nukes without anybody critcizing them, even the Muslim population. right now Al Qaeda probably are hesitant to use nukes (if they had one), unless they can justify it in front of the Muslim world. but we use nukes first in this war, then the Muslim population would be like changing their minds about us completely and join Al Qaida. thats why you dont see a billion Muslims joining Osama bin Laden's organization. Remember the bombings of the hotels of Jordan? That got the Muslim world mad and forced Al Qaida having to defend itself and explain the justification of it. thats a positive note for our side.



Usually I agree with you, but not this time.

If the muslim terrorists managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S., you'd see the rest of the muslim world dancing in the streets as they did after 9/11 on your TV - assuming you were not affected by the blast or EMP, yourself. Fear of what other muslims might think is not holding the terrorists back.

[edit on 11/23/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by deltaboy

we use nukes, Al Qaeda pretty much can use nukes without anybody critcizing them, even the Muslim population. right now Al Qaeda probably are hesitant to use nukes (if they had one), unless they can justify it in front of the Muslim world. but we use nukes first in this war, then the Muslim population would be like changing their minds about us completely and join Al Qaida. thats why you dont see a billion Muslims joining Osama bin Laden's organization. Remember the bombings of the hotels of Jordan? That got the Muslim world mad and forced Al Qaida having to defend itself and explain the justification of it. thats a positive note for our side.



Usually I agree with you, but not this time.

If the muslim terrorists managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S., you'd see the rest of the muslim world dancing in the streets as they did after 9/11 on your TV - assuming you were not affected by the blast or EMP, yourself. Fear of what other muslims might think is not holding the terrorists back.

[edit on 11/23/2005 by centurion1211]


When did you see the muslim world dancing after 9/11 ? I saw a few crowds celebrating but i would hardly call it the entire muslim world... If every muslim wanted to overthrow the west i think there would be a lot more trouble by now? the UK has millions of muslims why havnt they marched to downing street to take it over?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Fear of what other muslims might think is not holding the terrorists back.



true in a way. but remember why Osama bin laden made a video specifically to justify his attacks on America on 9/11. Why would he do that? if he doesnt care about the criticism then he would have been quiet about it instead of making a video about the justifications, fatwas, etc. you dont do that unless some where in your head tells you that you have to explain to the world why the attacks.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
hiddenreality. Are you really so naive as to think that terrorists are going to show their face let alone march down the street. I realize you were probably just kidding but you also have the common foolish idea that all terrorists are Muslims. Or that they would all follow, like sheep, other Muslim terrorists. Have you ever heard of the Aryan Brotherhood, the American Nazi Party, the KKK, David Duke and you could go on and on and not find a Muslim in sight. I'm sorry, but it shows a strong line of bigotry which is so prevalent in America today. Try and get a picture of our enemies and you might get a better picture of what we are facing.
So, if I suggest another way to fight terrorism and a way to maybe bring our troops home sooner, I mostly get a histronical reaction, except for a few people who may see another answer and who think for themselves.
You mostly react like John Kerry and the radical right who spout negatives and have no answer to the problem of Iraq or world wide terrorism.
You mostly all go nuts when someone mentions nukes, but when they come calling on America. What will you spout, more Anti-American rhetorich?
Tell me what you would do as opposed to what you are afraid we might do. If you don't like my ideas then give me your solutions.
To cut and run is not a well thought out action. Is that what you would do if someone was attacking your family. I hope not.
Stop being part of the nation who really are a nation of sheep. Try and think for yourself and stop spouting what other fools tell you. Maybe then we might come up with a real solution or is that not in your and our agenda. Think for yourself!



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
God bless America. May she not be distroyed from within.


if america is destroyed from within, i'm blaming our public school system.




posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
In Vietnam we fought with our hands tied behind our backs. The only thing we had was enough men to be killed because we could not legally go into Cambodia, cross the DMZ, use tactical nuclear weapons, and all the other don'ts that got our troops killed.
So once again in Iraq we fight with ouy hands tied. No forays into Syria, Iran and Afganistan. Way to few troops. We need a least another 200,000 more troops if we want to conclude this war with dispatch. If the draft is necessary so be it. If we need to pull our troops out of Korea that's fine. They don't seem to want us anyway. Tactical nukes when necessary.
Short and sweet-we need to do all that is necessary to win the war quickly and then very soon our troops will come home alive!


I think we need as few troops there as possible as our main strategy is to get the Iraqi soldiers trained for defense of themselves. Regardless, 70,000 non- POGs would be plenty.

As much as I would like to see the middle east turned into a parking lot, nukes arn't a viable option and will never be used.

The draft isnt necessary. Fiscal 2005 Enlisted Recruiting from Oct. 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005:

Recruiting Goals
Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army 73,373 80,000 92
Navy 37,703 37,635 100
Marine Corps 32,961 32,917 100
Air Force 19,222 18,900 102

(Compare that to the amount wounded.)

Military service should be mandatory anyway.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Exactly how is the USA fighting handicapped against a foe that has no tanks, planes, or other modern heavy military weaponry? I felt the same way about the Vietnam Conflict.

The insurgent/rebel/terrorist/whatever usage of roadside bombs is resultant from the USA calling in air strikes whenever they spot rebels attacking. They DO get bombed all the time. Which is why they have resorted to remote bombing tactics. Fallujah and several other cities in Iraq HAVE been decimated. There is no holding back that I can see unless war proponents want to completely wipe Iraq off the globe.

[edit on 24-11-2005 by heelstone]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   


There is no holding back that I can see unless war proponents want to completely wipe Iraq off the globe.


The real crazies are willing to kill however many people necessary so that their belief that the US is invincible is not threatened. If it be the whole planet, so be it, they don't care. Their whole self-image is built around extreme nationalism, they may be chumps IRL but at least they get the vicarious thrill of "being number 1" as citizens of the worlds greatest imperial power. The more people we slaughter, the more powerful they feel. Sad, but true.

[edit on 11/24/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by monk84
hiddenreality. Are you really so naive as to think that terrorists are going to show their face let alone march down the street. I realize you were probably just kidding but you also have the common foolish idea that all terrorists are Muslims. Or that they would all follow, like sheep, other Muslim terrorists. Have you ever heard of the Aryan Brotherhood, the American Nazi Party, the KKK, David Duke and you could go on and on and not find a Muslim in sight. I'm sorry, but it shows a strong line of bigotry which is so prevalent in America today. Try and get a picture of our enemies and you might get a better picture of what we are facing.
So, if I suggest another way to fight terrorism and a way to maybe bring our troops home sooner, I mostly get a histronical reaction, except for a few people who may see another answer and who think for themselves.
You mostly react like John Kerry and the radical right who spout negatives and have no answer to the problem of Iraq or world wide terrorism.
You mostly all go nuts when someone mentions nukes, but when they come calling on America. What will you spout, more Anti-American rhetorich?
Tell me what you would do as opposed to what you are afraid we might do. If you don't like my ideas then give me your solutions.
To cut and run is not a well thought out action. Is that what you would do if someone was attacking your family. I hope not.
Stop being part of the nation who really are a nation of sheep. Try and think for yourself and stop spouting what other fools tell you. Maybe then we might come up with a real solution or is that not in your and our agenda. Think for yourself!


I act radical by saying invading 3 more countries to try and bring your troops home is a retarded idea? As for me mentioning muslims, you said attack 3 muslim nations, so why try to acuse me of bigotry? Show my some KKK in Iran, im fully aware there are just as many sick aholes in America as the rest of the world. Your idea is completely stupid and shows you know nothing about military strategy, you cant manage a few thousand iraqis fighting with guns which should be in a history museum and home made explosives, and you want to open another 3 fronts? I think its you who is the sheep.

As for an solution to Iraq? You should get the hell out of there, dont compare what you are doing to Iraq with somebody attacking your family, you attacked Iraq, how many Iraqis are responsible for american deaths before USA invaded the country?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality

Originally posted by monk84
hiddenreality. Are you really so naive as to think that terrorists are going to show their face let alone march down the street. I realize you were probably just kidding but you also have the common foolish idea that all terrorists are Muslims. Or that they would all follow, like sheep, other Muslim terrorists. Have you ever heard of the Aryan Brotherhood, the American Nazi Party, the KKK, David Duke and you could go on and on and not find a Muslim in sight. I'm sorry, but it shows a strong line of bigotry which is so prevalent in America today. Try and get a picture of our enemies and you might get a better picture of what we are facing.
So, if I suggest another way to fight terrorism and a way to maybe bring our troops home sooner, I mostly get a histronical reaction, except for a few people who may see another answer and who think for themselves.
You mostly react like John Kerry and the radical right who spout negatives and have no answer to the problem of Iraq or world wide terrorism.
You mostly all go nuts when someone mentions nukes, but when they come calling on America. What will you spout, more Anti-American rhetorich?
Tell me what you would do as opposed to what you are afraid we might do. If you don't like my ideas then give me your solutions.
To cut and run is not a well thought out action. Is that what you would do if someone was attacking your family. I hope not.
Stop being part of the nation who really are a nation of sheep. Try and think for yourself and stop spouting what other fools tell you. Maybe then we might come up with a real solution or is that not in your and our agenda. Think for yourself!


I act radical by saying invading 3 more countries to try and bring your troops home is a retarded idea? As for me mentioning muslims, you said attack 3 muslim nations, so why try to acuse me of bigotry? Show my some KKK in Iran, im fully aware there are just as many sick aholes in America as the rest of the world. Your idea is completely stupid and shows you know nothing about military strategy, you cant manage a few thousand iraqis fighting with guns which should be in a history museum and home made explosives, and you want to open another 3 fronts? I think its you who is the sheep.

As for an solution to Iraq? You should get the hell out of there, dont compare what you are doing to Iraq with somebody attacking your family, you attacked Iraq, how many Iraqis are responsible for american deaths before USA invaded the country?


We are handling the occupation very well in my opinion. An estimated 40,000 insurgents are dead and Iraqi soldiers are being trained as we speak.

If needed we have the man power to open up another front in Iran. There are 130,000 troops in Iraq out of the approximately two million available.

You obviously know nothing of the growing sophistication of IEDs. Some are being remotely detonated with cell phones at this point.

We can't just cut and run now. That would send the message to the enemy that we are cowards and that terrorism is effective. Iraq is a hot bed of Al Qaeda and other organizations. It would be a huge mistake to leave until the job is done.

This is a war on terrorism. Saddam Hussein paid an estimated 35 million USD to Palestinian family members of suicide bombers.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   


Iraq is a hot bed of Al Qaeda and other organizations.


We'll there's one line from your post that I can agree with.

You neglect to mention, however, that this is only the case because we invaded in the first place. As far as "handling things very well", the insurgency appears to be growing, not shrinking. I'd hardly call that a sign of success.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Originally posted by killirl
Iraq is a hot bed of Al Qaeda and other organizations.

You neglect to mention, however, that this is only the case because we invaded in the first place.


What is there to neglect?
How do you know that what killirl mentions was not an intended strategy?






seekerof



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
You guys are great at coming up with ex post facto "strategies" to explain away an increasingly obvious debacle (and to maintain the delusion of "dominance" that drives you). "AHA, they planned it this way all along." Only they clearly didn't.

The simple fact is, we were clearly not prepared for an insurgency of this size and scope. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators, with flowers and parades, if you remember...

How many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have to die before you people can admit this was a mistake?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join