You know what I dont get?

All the naysayers who dont say that the war on terror cant be won. It can be won. It is a winnable war. We have only lost three thousand troops in Iraq and we have been fighting proudly and our troops have been fighting in what they believe in because they volunteered. The 100,000 troops are there for peace keeping, and I think we will succeed very soon with the addition of a new president and new strategic cabinet members on the warfront making decisions. I am very proud of our troops and I do not feel like the Iraq war is going to be another vietnam, nor are the generations of this era will be another vietnam generation, that's because there are enough troops there so that we dont have to cause a draft and there enough people who want to meet with Iran and Syria so that we dont have to send anymore people in. I dont get how so many foreigners can have such a negative view about Iraq-- heck more then fifty percent of Iraqis favored insurgent attacks on US troops stationed in Iraq, they should be grateful for us coming in, we gave them a country. They should be grateful for what we have done and we are building an embassy for them and that's exactly what they wanted. We are in our occupational phases right now. And we have been doing far better then vietnam. Why compare the two? IF you do, that'll make you look stupid.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
All the naysayers who dont say that the war on terror cant be won. It can be won. It is a winnable war. (snip) I am very proud of our troops and I do not feel like the Iraq war is going to be another vietnam,

While I share your respect for those who fight in Iraq, I do not believe that casualty ratios say anything about their odds of succeeding in the daunting task that this nation so hastily threw before them. Casualty ratios in Vietnam we very favorable as well... although also inflated. I have heard, though I can't prove it to be true, that if all body counts in Vietnam were accurate, there would be no more Vietnamese people.

First of all, let's separate the war on terror from the war in Iraq. They are very different animals. Even if one is given to viewing the war in Iraq as a component of the war on terror, it is only one component, and of a distinct character from others. One can lose a battle and still win the war.

The war on terror can be won. The odds that a relatively small unconventional force representing an ideology which has already long outlived its relevance can endure either militarily or morally for the decades which it would take for them to gain control of and advance a nation to the point that they could ever hope to impose a will on our soil are incredibly slim.
The war on terror can be won quite easily. Intelligence and well placed small interventions can take care of it. What they would spend months or years building, we can turn to shambles, if granted not completely obliterate, in one good week of action with minimal direct particpation; just look at Somalia.

Iraq is another issue. In Iraq, we are attempting to raze and recreate a whole society. Such tasks have daunted even the most stunningly successful military forces in history. Only those which were willing to destroy innocent people wholesale have regularly even come close, and even they have more often than not failed. The Communists could not do it in Afghanistan. We could not do it in Vietnam. The Israelis could not do it in Palestine. The Nazis could not do it in France. We could not do it in the Philippines. Etc etc etc.

It has worked on smaller groups from time to time, or for the most brutal forces. It worked in the Albigensian Crusade. It worked, for a while, for the Mongols, though eventually they were absorbed by the Chinese. Will we resort to their tactics though? Will we force the civilians of a city to surrender, and then slaughter every man woman and child of them right outside the city? Will we lay waste to entire villages, telling our soldiers to let God sort the bad guys from the good?

We shouldn't, we won't, and though I know I'm wrong on this last one, I would like to believe that we couldn't bring ourselves to it.


The parallels and the differences of Iraq and Vietnam have been discussed at some length before. I will not get too verbose on that subject here, but I will say that while the tactical situation differs, the strategic makings of the two wars are similarly flawed, and the moral forces at work similarly bode ill for us. Wars, it may be true, are won in the temple, at least in part. I believe that America should figuratively spend a little time in the temple redefining its objectives, and recreate its foreign policy in a form that best represents our imperatives and our physical and moral capabilities.

What I do not get, is why a nation as powerful as ours should ever have to lose a war. It would seem to me that our power would enable us to fight any battle which is necessary, so long as our hearts are in it. Only when America goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy, and/or when we fight without the moral imperative to succeed, do I believe that America can find wars that it is incapable of winning.

even if we can win iraq (which i'm not sure of), we wouldn't eliminate terrorism
the only way to beat the terrorists is to become worse than them
a totalitarian police state
why do i say this?
well, the USA has "terrorists" that aren't labeled as such
gangs
racial extremists
religious extremists of our own
all of which commit crimes that, if committed in iraq, would be considered terrorist

If you've glanced at the USA's own defunct Patterns of Global Terrorism report and the new National Counterterrorism Center reports you will see a 5,000 percent increase in the amount of terror attacks from the year 2003 going forward. The area being most affected by these terror attacks? Iraq.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the War on Terror is increasing acts of terrorism by percentages ranging in the thousands.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Frith]

Surrender completely.

We'll rebuild everything and send you our jobs.

History says I'm right.

Originally posted by RANT
Surrender completely.

We'll rebuild everything and send you our jobs.

History says I'm right.

Sorry, it doesn't work if you do it intentionally.

It's been tried. And if Peter Sellers couldn't pull it off...

I was going to run a joke on The Mouse That Roared dangit! Next person to steal my thunder is in a whole world of trouble.

As for terrorism being increased 5000 percent when you count Iraq, you have to count the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror to conclude that the war on terror is increasing terrorism.

If fought properly, the war on terror would quickly reduce terrorism. The problem is that we are running around destabilizing nations and making an inviting target of ourselves.

A proper approach to the WOT is to make ourselves an inaccessible target by striking asymetrically, using intelligence, smart weapons, and special operations rather than sending hundreds of thousands of people to go wander around on the enemy's turf waiting to get shot at.

I think it is very important not to fall into the false dichotomy of "the way it's being done now" or "not at all". Many of our policy conundrums in many areas could be solved if it American politics didn't split us up into "administration supporters" and "the opposition", thus blinding us to the alternatives in the middle.

vagabond, you forgot something

we need to also adress the root causes of terrorism

sure, we could drastically decrease terrorism with fighting alone
but only in the short term

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As for terrorism being increased 5000 percent when you count Iraq, you have to count the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror to conclude that the war on terror is increasing terrorism.

The Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces has labeled it as such so it is.

A proper approach to the WOT is to make ourselves an inaccessible target by striking asymetrically, using intelligence, smart weapons, and special operations rather than sending hundreds of thousands of people to go wander around on the enemy's turf waiting to get shot at.

I think it is very important not to fall into the false dichotomy of "the way it's being done now" or "not at all". Many of our policy conundrums in many areas could be solved if it American politics didn't split us up into "administration supporters" and "the opposition", thus blinding us to the alternatives in the middle.

While I agree that actual terrorism should be dealt with in a different manner, I cannot condone the hit and run attacks the USA has performed upon Pakistan and Somalia for example.

As far as this false dichotomy goes. I don't think we will ever be given another choice. So I have to go with not at all.

Although I agree with that, I also think that America needs to be realistic about the extent to which it can do that.

Dealing fairly in matters pertaining to Israel/Palestine is certainly something we should do, and that would help. The Israelis are big boys and they can take care of themselves. They don't need us backing them every step of the way. We can use our economic and diplomatic clout to broker fair deals in the interest of both sides without any fear that failing to 100% back Israel might result in the fall of that nation. I'm not suggesting that America can solve the problem there either, but I am saying that we can stop contributing to the problem and start making a down payment on a contribution to a solution.

Our stance on Hamas is a great example. I don't like Hamas any more than I like Kim Jong Il, but in both cases it's the same- they are the government and you're either going to have to make it work with them or get rid of them. We're not going to fight a war for Israel that even the Israelis aren't trying to fight, so we're not going to get rid of them. That leaves working with them. We have to recongize them and use incentives and consequences to draw them into some workable system of negotiation.

Economic cooperation is obviously a useful tool as well to a certain extent, though we can't economically rape ourselves just because cell phones and Mc Donalds will mellow them out.

On the other hand, we cannot simply withdraw from the middle east and abandon our national interests in the region as they would like us to do. Saudi Arabia may be the Holy Land, but it's also an important position from which we can maintain a deterrent against Iranian aggression in the gulf.

So there's a fine line to walk. We'll meet them half way, but if they don't like that idea, they're not gonna like how trying to fight us turns out either.


And Frith,
The Commander in Chief, though he refuses to admit it, does not have a monopoly either on American policy or on accurate analysis of the situations facing America.

Does the President's word determine whether it is part of the war on terror?
In my mind, whether or not this is a war on terror depends on whether the war is serving to fight terrorism. This war certainly does not appear to be fighting terrorism. It fought Secular Ba'athism and Iraqi factionism. Terrorist involvement has been incidental at best.

As voters, it is up to us to seek out the third choice and elect its proponents. It's not a matter of whether or not we'll be given one, it's a matter of whether or not we will take the initiative to get it. It's an imperfect world- nobody is going to hand us democracy on a silver platter-but we are fortunate enough that we don't have to shed blood in the streets for it as our ancestors did, we've just got to shake of the apathy and put some thought and organization into the way we choose our leaders.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
All the naysayers who dont say that the war on terror cant be won. It can be won. It is a winnable war. We have only lost three thousand troops in Iraq and we have been fighting proudly and our troops have been fighting in what they believe in because they volunteered.

Coalition causalities have been low in Iraq because coalition troops aren't the insurgents primary target and medical tech and health care has improved since previous wars. Iraq isn't a part of the War on Terror instead its an expensive side show without any clear strategic vision.

The 100,000 troops are there for peace keeping, and I think we will succeed very soon with the addition of a new president and new strategic cabinet members on the warfront making decisions. I am very proud of our troops and I do not feel like the Iraq war is going to be another vietnam,.

If you think that the coalition are acting as peace keepers in Iraq I would hate to see what you think troops are doing when they are fighting a war. Iraq isn't another Vietnam in the military sense but the same flawed BS political motives appear to be behind both wars.

I dont get how so many foreigners can have such a negative view about Iraq-- heck more then fifty percent of Iraqis favored insurgent attacks on US troops stationed in Iraq, they should be grateful for us coming in, we gave them a country.

Now your making sense what so ever. Iraq only exits on a map and not surprisingly we are seeing the result of thousands of years of hatred , political rather then tribal borders and a botched occupation.

They should be grateful for what we have done and we are building an embassy for them and that's exactly what they wanted. We are in our occupational phases right now.

Can I have some of what your smoking ?
Why would an Iraqi who only has electricity for a part of the day and who's kids risk death by going to school want a US embassy ?
I guess that people who believed that elections would solve Iraq's problems would believe anything if it suited there political ideology.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, the USA has "terrorists" that aren't labeled as such
gangs
racial extremists
religious extremists of our own
all of which commit crimes that, if committed in iraq, would be considered terrorist

The gangs, in many states, have become prolific enough to be labeled and given criminal enhancements. They may not have the "terrorist" label but they still have higher penalties based on the fact that they are a gang.

For instance here in California it is a crime to commit crimes while participating in a criminal street gang. The legal definition is long but most law enforcement agencies have a good way of proving who are active members of their street gangs. This type of laws allow there to be extra incarceration time for gang members.