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.

 

Another Failed Crusade?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The US's "GWOT"/War Against Radical Islamic Extremism/Long War, seems to be failing daily. Indeed the US's current foreign policies seems to be a total mess.

The US certainly can't stop terrorism assuming that it was trying.
The US can't stop Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. At least not through war.

The US can't even stop Iran's Nuclear Program only postpone it, barring an invasion, and that would be a disaster. Furthermore, how long can they postpone it depends on the response to their bombing. Finally, Iran is very much needed. The Islamic Republic has never been more popular, if the US is against you and your military is insufficient then this is the situation to be in.

Finally alliances are popping up against the US and its credibility and leadership is being shot to pieces more everyday.

It's time to pick up the pieces and the American Administration should make changes to its global policies in the world. The Crusade is over. What do you guys think?

[edit on 9-5-2006 by NeoQuest]




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I think you sound like a weak Democratic Candidate who doesn't know what they are talking about. Have you been reading the news this week?

Iraq is on its way to having a cabinet and

Iran is being offered by the US Russia China UK France and Germany a Carrot and Stick approach to solving the conflict there.

Slowly but surely stuff gets done.

And I think you have probably had the same opinion before the war began as you do now.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The Democrat/Republican or conservative/liberal arguments sound like boring cliches. As a matter of fact there are currently or at least at one point there were more Republicans then democrats who were beginning to go against this administrations war. I suggest you stop sticking to the brand labels and judge more on reality.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
to that my advice to you is to write your democratic congressman so that the Democrats can come up with some political strategy for America in the next decade, it is not too late.

Don't try to tun into the PC(Politically Correct) Police on me. I understand the downfalls of stereotypes since not everyone thinks the same.

However Anti-PC Stereo-types are they are based on some truth.

Democrats haven' had a united message since '01, if your post is about a "failed crusade" maybe you should be talking about the failure of specific democratic leaders in the last five plus years including Gore, Kerry(Teresa Heinz), Reid(Nevada) and Clinton.(Hillary)



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You keep going on and on about the democrats but this has nothing to do with what I wrote, as a matter a fact many from both sides might agree with me. My writing was simply based on my concern for what I considered the failure of current actions and hope for some change.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
In a "Healthy" democracy if one party doesn't like what the other is doing it gets its members together and organizes a plan that is a better one in which solves the problems of the current plan. In 5 years time the democrats have not done that. The Democrats have talked to censure the President and that is about it. My question to you is can it be considered a "failed crusade" when half of the country never gave the war a chance?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
It seems like your very heavy into this partisan thing so I may as well respond. The Democrats have indeed yet to show a strong direction in this whole thing, but personally I'm not sure I would agree with their future position since some are saying they believe they should become harder or take a more militant stance then the republicans. Personally though I don't care which party does it but someone should go in a different direction on many of the issues in world politics and especially the middle east.

Now as for not giving the war a chance, I really don't understand what that means. How long should we take to give this war a chance? At any rate I'm criticizing the strategies. Even in war do you keep using the same strategy if its not working, obviously not unless you wish to lose.

Then again, which war are you talking about. Is it the Long War or the Iraq War. I was talking about the so called Long War. I don't believe that Bushes current overly agressive stance works in this war or in the middle east. Many of the things I mention can't be fought with using weapons anyway. Of course I'll admit that this assumes that the US is really fighting the war for the stated reasons. If not, then maybe whatever secret reasons the US is fighting for, her goals are being fulfilled.

As for the Iraq war, I never mentioned it, although I see problems there as well.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
"Personally though I don't care which party does it but someone should go in a different direction on many of the issues in world politics and especially the middle east."

Your argument is as shallow as you are.

Who says the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?

What do they propose we should do to stop it?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well Orbit besides the fact that your statments were not totally understandable you have yet to reply with any substantial response to prove me wrong. Your arguments seem to consist of whining about the fact that I just won't give the war a chance. Iran is in negotiations was one of your statements, well thank you sir I know that. Iraq is getting a cabinet, wow that's thorough. Why don't you just give me a detailed response proving me totally wrong. Or at least breaking most of my assumptions. Otherwise I figure the only thing your good at is insults.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
it isnt worth the time.;



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   


Who says the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?


I do. Let me explain why.

What would "winning" the war in Iraq involve? I submit that it would involve having a country that we could move our troops out of, that would remain not only stable, but also friendly to us. This requires a whole lot more than choosing a cabinet, or having this or that country offer this or that trade arrangement or bit of aid. It requires putting an end to the insurgency. It requires having a government recognized as legitimate by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, including those that don't necessarily agree with the direction it's taking. (As Americans right now generally recognize the Bush administration as legitimate, or anyway are not willing to take up arms against it, even though most Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing.) And having such a government that would be friendly to the U.S. is even more of a challenge.

Quite honestly, I don't think the job can be done at all, and I'm dead certain it can't be done quickly. And by "quickly," I mean within less time than about 20-30 years, the time it would take for a whole new generation of Iraqis to be born and come of age. So in order to "win" the war in Iraq, we would have to occupy the country for decades, AND do an overwhelmingly good job of reeducation the whole population (or the young people anyway), and most likely also curb some of our nasty behavior towards the Middle East that makes Muslims hate us in the first place.

I do not think we have the national will to keep a large occupation force in Iraq for decades, taking casualties all the time. And after all, why should we? And if we pull out of Iraq before "winning" the war (which we almost surely will), then we lose.

And that is why I say we are losing. In Iraq, the only way to win would have been not to play.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
The US's "GWOT"/War Against Radical Islamic Extremism/Long War, seems to be failing daily. Indeed the US's current foreign policies seems to be a total mess.

The US certainly can't stop terrorism

Why?

The US used military intervention to stop piracy on the north africa coasts, thats as cellular and 'culture/economically/ideologically' driven as terrorism.
The US can't stop Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. At least not through war.

The US can't even stop Iran's Nuclear Program only postpone it, barring an invasion
Well there you go, it can stop it, with an invasion.


and that would be a disaster.

For the iranians, sure.


The Islamic Republic has never been more popular, if the US is against you and your military is insufficient then this is the situation to be in.

What does that matter?


Finally alliances are popping up against the US

Then they will be destroyed.


and its credibility and leadership is being shot to pieces more everyday.

So?


It's time to pick up the pieces and the American Administration should make changes to its global policies in the world.

Like what?


What do you guys think?

Its not a crusade, its a war against states that support/permit/enable terrorism. The worst of those states will be invaded, destroyed, and occupied. Whether or not they can cobble together an open democratic government is up to them, if they can't, they'll be permanently occupied, like the palestinians. Meanwhile, the terrorist organizations themselves will be infiltrated, exposed, and its members will be hunted down and killed.


[edit on 9-5-2006 by NeoQuest]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward


Who says the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?


I do. Let me explain why.

What would "winning" the war in Iraq involve? I submit that it would involve having a country that we could move our troops out of, that would remain not only stable, but also friendly to us. This requires a whole lot more than choosing a cabinet, or having this or that country offer this or that trade arrangement or bit of aid. It requires putting an end to the insurgency. It requires having a government recognized as legitimate by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, including those that don't necessarily agree with the direction it's taking. (As Americans right now generally recognize the Bush administration as legitimate, or anyway are not willing to take up arms against it, even though most Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing.) And having such a government that would be friendly to the U.S. is even more of a challenge.

Quite honestly, I don't think the job can be done at all, and I'm dead certain it can't be done quickly. And by "quickly," I mean within less time than about 20-30 years, the time it would take for a whole new generation of Iraqis to be born and come of age. So in order to "win" the war in Iraq, we would have to occupy the country for decades, AND do an overwhelmingly good job of reeducation the whole population (or the young people anyway), and most likely also curb some of our nasty behavior towards the Middle East that makes Muslims hate us in the first place.

I do not think we have the national will to keep a large occupation force in Iraq for decades, taking casualties all the time. And after all, why should we? And if we pull out of Iraq before "winning" the war (which we almost surely will), then we lose.

And that is why I say we are losing. In Iraq, the only way to win would have been not to play.


A defeatist, weak and defensive position of a position assumed prior to September 11th. In that framework of time your ideas may function. Not now. Reality is, we have to give the Iraqi Govt. its full needs and suckle it until it grows itself into a force to deter its own enemies-the anti life, liberty and freedom for all gang, that we call the "insurgency". Let's face it, radical ISLAM is the "insurgency" and freedom is the option we have given these people now. Do you here, want to discourage this or promote death and defeat for them and the United States?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
A defeatist, weak and defensive position of a position


What? What's a "position of a position"? Do you ever edit your posts, or even read them before you hit the "Post Reply" button?

When you find yourself driving a car over a cliff, is hitting the brakes "weak"? Or is it smart? Do you understand the difference?



assumed prior to September 11th.


Don't be silly. We hadn't invaded Iraq until 2003. That was two years after 9/11, not before. It's true I can sometimes see into the future, but I did not foresee the Iraq invasion as early as that.



Reality is, we have to give the Iraqi Govt. its full needs and suckle it until it grows itself into a force to deter its own enemies


Oh, yes, we do have to. Only trouble is, we can't. And won't. We have sown the hydra's teeth, and there's nothing we can do about it now.



Let's face it, radical ISLAM is the "insurgency"


Radical Islam is a militant religion. It is not an insurgency. Although some of the Iraqi insurgents are radical Muslims, if that's what you mean.



and freedom is the option we have given these people now.


Invading, conquering, and occupying a foreign country, and setting up concentration camps therein for dissidents, now becomes "giving them freedom." Where have I heard that kind of language before?



Do you here, want to discourage this or promote death and defeat for them and the United States?


No, that was President Bush. He, not I, chose to put us in this impossible position. He, not I, is promoting defeat for the U.S. That's what happens when you start a war you can't win.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join