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.

 

Time limits for war?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Not arguing, just wanting elaboration, and clarification. Which history are you speaking of? And who provides this course? Just asking.




posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamwalker74
 


Play your games with words and keep denying the truth.

Yes we would have protected ourselves. And it's a moot point about WWII in any case. This is nothing like WWII.

The issue here is wars of choice that we are spending trillions on while our country crumbles.

bin Laden is not a source for me. I take it you haven't read his letters written prior to 9/11. Your response pretty much verifies this. I've spent time in the Middle East and know that many, many people there echo his very straightforward and simple sentiments. Sentiments you yourself would probably be screaming were the same to happen to you. But your probably still don't even know what I'm talking about here.

It's particularly interesting how you ignored the points about disproportionate response re; deaths and also just how "safe" our airports, ports, and borders are...how VERY little focus the very same people who appear to make you cower in fear over "terrorism" and Muslims place on your ACTUAL safety in such a very scary world.

Does anyone really still actually believe that fighting them over there is making things better anywhere? It's creating new people who hate us. We're going to pay for this for generations to come.

So, back to your question. Time limits for wars of choice make perfect sense. If you really buy that they are really setting time limits, that is.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

"Yes we would have protected ourselves. And it's a moot point about WWII in any case. This is nothing like WWII."


Oh, I tend to disagree. We are in the same way facing a harsh, world dominance seeking, dictatorship enemy. Who if left alone would definitely continue to try to kill every single one of us. The fact that we are too PC to deal with the problem, is in fact the main problem. If WWII occured today, I dare to say that you would judge any action by the U.S as anti German, racist, and for that matter not necessary based on the fact that Germany would never invade us.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


"bin Laden is not a source for me. I take it you haven't read his letters written prior to 9/11. Your response pretty much verifies this. I've spent time in the Middle East and know that many, many people there echo his very straightforward and simple sentiments. Sentiments you yourself would probably be screaming were the same to happen to you. But your probably still don't even know what I'm talking about here."

You're so right I never read the letters by Bin Laden about the "infidels" invading their homeland, specifically Saudi Arabia. God forbid we should try to do any form of commerce with a foreign country! Oh sorry we are talking the middle east. We are not welcome there, because we are in fact the enemy of Allah. and all infidels should either be put into slavery or die!



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


"It's particularly interesting how you ignored the points about disproportionate response re; deaths and also just how "safe" our airports, ports, and borders are...how VERY little focus the very same people who appear to make you cower in fear over "terrorism" and Muslims place on your ACTUAL safety in such a very scary world."

Disproportionate force is neccessary when dealing with those who only understand force. When the school bully shoves you, you break his nose and kick out one of his knees. At that point not only will he not bully you, he is no longer the school bully period. As far as the safety of our country is concerned, I agree with you fully. Not enought has been done, specifically on our southern border. Look up the statistics on how many OTM "Other than Mexican", illegal immigrants have been captured on the border in the last 10 years, it is staggering.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Does anyone really still actually believe that fighting them over there is making things better anywhere? It's creating new people who hate us. We're going to pay for this for generations to come.

We will only pay for this iif we stop taking this war seriously and step it up several notches. If the muslim radicalls at the end of this war do not fear us with every bone in their bodies, we have failed this war. The wanted outcome in the end should be simple, they should add a page to the Quaran that states. "yes infidels are still bad, but if we continue to f$%K with the U.S we will no longer exist."



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


"So, back to your question. Time limits for wars of choice make perfect sense. If you really buy that they are really setting time limits, that is. "


Yes I believe our leadership is setting "acutal time limits" because they don't have the stomache or the true desire to save their people.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
There will be no exit from these places. Period.

There will be a draw down of troops but we will always have a large contingent of military in country. Even Canada who has had a exit date of 2011/July set for a while has said we aren't leaving, just changing roles.

How many troops are being left in Iraq to man the new embassy?

0?

I don't think so.

This war was never meant to be "won" in the classical warfare sense. There are no real defined goals except to "nation build", whatever that means. Such oxymoronic terms used now days.

Does nation building not require troops?

NATO, the US and others will be in these countries for a long, long time. I mean we have taken ten years to get to what? A stalemate for all intents and purposes.

If we wanted to win this war we would have gone all out from the start. We didn't. Instead we have surges and build ups. We have already created another 3 or 4 generations of enemies of the West, no use in stepping up now and finishing things.

If we were serious about winning, this would have been over 5 years ago.

Not Mission Accomplished in big banners on carriers but unconditional surrender on the grounds of the presidential palaces in Baghdad and Kabul.

Exit strategies and timelines?

Sure mate.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by dreamwalker74
 


No, Germany would not have attacked us in the U.S. We would have protected ourselves.



Really?

hnn.us...

Just like we "protected ourselves" from those crazy Japanese who all of a sudden bombed Pearl Harbor right? Give me a break, Hitler was a nut job and if he woulda played his cards right we would have been facing him on our own shores and not his.

I have to agree with the OP, setting time limits is just tipping your hand. Yeah, 9 years of no progress is crap but our goals there have been unclear and continue to be ever since the onset of the war. Lets actually take a real look of what would really happen if we just pulled out all of a sudden. There would be a huge power vacuum and nobody to fill it but the Taliban once again and all the left wingers that are crying about the war now will go back to crying about how the Taliban are killing innocent women for looking at the men wrong, again.

I personally believe that in order for anybody to actually win a war, it really needs to be old school. These people wouldnt honor an unconditional surrender like Japan did in WWII as soon as one random cleric would call it as being against Islam and Allah and every other thing he could come up with and declare another holy war against the infedels. In reality, you do have to take out there clerics as they are the ones doing the recruiting. In fact, they are so good at it, the higher ups in the enemy camps model themselves after these "holy men" and become "holy men" themselves in order to do their own recruiting. Take out there clerics as soon as they pop up.

Also, we need to start giving the people that live their jobs in building the infastructure of the country, this is key. That old saying that idle hands are the devils playground is true. If the people themselves have nothing to do all day but sit around and hate us for what we are doing then they will join the jihad.

And as far as paying for this, i like the old school version of to the winner goes the spoils. We should be getting oil rights, mineral rights, everything. In the old days, this is how life was done. But your right op, it is way to pc to even consider doing any of this stuff. To bad, such a shame.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Good call. My question to you: Is nation building a bad thing? Why? Afghanistan, and the majority of the middle east is historrically behind us by thousands of years. If this directly affects our nations security and the security of the planet, shouldn't we free their people and create a new, peaceful middle east that can be an asset to the world VS an enemy. GO NATION BUILDING!!



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


Actually the post you are replying to was me responding to another member. I am the OP. Thank you for agreeing with me though, and I agree with you.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Not arguing, just wanting elaboration, and clarification. Which history are you speaking of? And who provides this course? Just asking.


This is not the first time a war in Afghanistan has tested the ability of world powers.

The British dealt with it before, and they failed. That war caused many of the set backs that saw the Biritsh empires demise.

The Russians dealt with it before, and they failed. And again, that war caused many of the set backs that would see the end of the soviet union.

There is no difference in the situations. It's a war that can't be won.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I agree and disagree with you. The reason nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, is the simple fact that they have never been willing to identify and take out the true leadership because of political reasons. These leaders are the .s of the mosques, and the religeous leaders across the middle east. They continue to preach and recruit far faster than we can kill. We could absolutely be the first country to win this war, but we need to take the scrutiny of the rest of the world when we actually take out the true "leaders".



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I agree and disagree with you. The reason nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan, is the simple fact that they have never been willing to identify and take out the true leadership because of political reasons. These leaders are the .s of the mosques, and the religeous leaders across the middle east. They continue to preach and recruit far faster than we can kill. We could absolutely be the first country to win this war, but we need to take the scrutiny of the rest of the world when we actually take out the true "leaders".


So you think every religious leader in the middle east are the leaders?

You're basically saying that Islam is the cause of all this. A religion that consists of about 1/3 of the worlds population.

I think your assessment on the situation is either completely off or purposely set with an intended agenda other than actually dealing with the problem.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamwalker74
 


The reason nobody has ever won a war in Afghanistan is because the terrain is too difficult. It cannot be negotiated with without complete destruction, which is undesireable and unacceptable to most of us.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


Is nation building a bad thing?


To be honest, I don't know because I am not sure what it exactly entails. I know what the Doctrine is about but the only part of the Doctrine I have seen in action is the tearing down of the nation.


Afghanistan, and the majority of the middle east is historrically behind us by thousands of years.


Yes if you believe everything you hear.

www.foreignpolicy.com...

Until the Soviets invaded, Afghanistan was a second world country with a decent mix between west and east, urban and rural. 30 years or so of constant war has turned the country into what we see today. Couple that with what the taliban did to the country in its short time in power and the appearance of being a stone age society is easily understood.


If this directly affects our nations security and the security of the planet, shouldn't we free their people and create a new, peaceful middle east that can be an asset to the world VS an enemy.


Lets keep in mind one thing though. We, the West, had an open relationship with the Taliban before 9/11. We recognized them as the lawful government. We knew there were terrorist training camps within the borders, Clinton shot a few cruise missiles at them in retaliation to the Embassy attacks . We had lots of trade and diplomatic ties with them. Nothing really bothered us much. They were the kind of dictatorship the West liked before 9/11 happened. The ones that brutalize their own countries but leave the others alone. And hell, if they had of handed over Bin laden, they may still be in power but that is shear speculation on my part.

If a peaceful Middle east is the goal, why not attack the places that are much more involved in the global Jihad, like Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Syria, Sudan, Somalia etc...?




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join