It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


United States Loosing Because Of Iraq?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:55 PM
Okay, I personally believe that the "War On Terror" has become the worst governmental blunder since The War On Drugs. You may disagree with me, and I'm cool with that, so long as you've got a better argument than just "THE USA ROCKS ALL." Sorry Freepers, the USA has shown quite unable to rock Osama and The Network out of their holes and into a jail cell, just like we were unable to rock Ho Chi Min out of the jungle.

Anyways here's my theory:

Iraq really didn't accomplish anything regarding killing the real enemies of America, but that's been said. I believe that it had horribly hurt our chance at actually winning the War On Terror.

In case you forgot your Warfare 101 class, a war is pretty well un-winnable unless one side can stem the tide of agression on the other side. In World War Two we pulled it off by bombing the living hell out of Japan and Germany, blowing away their manufacturing centers.

But it's not like Radical Islam has a factory in Afghanistan pumping out Panzers, if they did we'd have no problem blasting it. Now this puts us in a simmilar position to Russia in WWII, although for totally different reasons. Russia lacked the air power and force projection to hammer German production centers, instead they had to smack head to head with the blitz and drain the Reich's manpower resources.

Which is exactly how the United States is now fighting, however there is another important difference: Germany had a statistically smaller base of manpower to pull on than did the Soviets. While in our time there are many many more potential Islamic Radicals than there are American troops. The issue then becomes one of how to cut off the flow of incoming recruits to the opposition.

So far, the Americans have worked under a doctorine of "Shock And Awe" there's a term we haven't heard in a while, but it's still being used. Basically the idea is that the sheer destructive power of the American Military will scare would be radicals into thinking twice. Remember, we have yet to loose a battle, and anyone who comes against the US War Machine generally gets death by hot metal moving at supersonic speed.

Now this doctorine isn't terrible in every potental war, it would be greatly effective against a limited insurgency within a confined area. However it's a terrible doctorine in the current war because of three main reasons:

1: We are fighting an adversary that is RADICAL, come on Militant Fundamentalist Christians, you can relate here, what do you do when faced with an overwhelming foe that you believe is hell bent on destroying your culture and forcing their beliefs down your throat while a gun is against your throat? That's right kids! You keep fighting, see you and them aren't so different after all!

2: Okay, settling down... Also the area that the Terrorists can draw upon is not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are people willing to fight the Americans worldwide. And since the majority of them live in the Middle East, Central and South East Asia, there's not going to be a shortage of potential recruits for a long long time, thanks to some of the youngest average populations on the planet!

3: The Terrorist leadership ain't as dumb as we'd like to think! Just because they live in caves does not mean they don't know what they're doing. These are people that have a mastery of skills like persuasion, tactics, theology and in many cases America itself. Unlike us they know who they are fighting. If you ever want to know who Osama would vote for, just look at that video he sent right before the election, If you think he was leaning towards Kerry, you've obviously never taken a college sociology class.

So think about it: American invades Iraq, hyper-conservative Islamic leadership starts yelling that it just proves that the US wants to destroy em all. Americans set up a pet government and have it declare martal law, the Radical Islamic terrorists just seem more correct to the population.

Anyone else see a pattern here?

Well, like I said, disagree with me, go for it, dissent is what America was founded upon! Just keep it within the relm of the sane. If all you got is to call me anti-American or a French Fry, save it, I really don't care what people who refuse to think feel.

Viva La Resistance!

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:44 PM
I agree with you the terrorists are masters at persuasion. Just look at Araft.

Anyways The War on Terror can't be won. If a Muslim sctrictly follows the Quran then by American defenition he is a terrorist. Fundamentalist Muslims are not peaceful! The War on Terror needs to change its name to: "War on the Millions of Muslims who want to destroy the 'great satan' and install a theocratic world government where all other faiths are outlawed and their followers killed or converted by the sword."

Not a compete war on Muslims because like most religions most of the followers are not Muslims by acts only by name. So those Muslims are peaceful even if they "have a soft spot for Bin Laden."

Bush is right the War on Terror cannot be won because the doves of the developed world won't allow a war on Islam.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:20 PM
OBL promissed that he would run us into Debt, we are 8trillion and counting, blowing pension funds, SS and cutting domestic budgets. Soon we are going to slide that big piece of plastic throught the international funds reader.

Yes, borrowing from Saudi Arabia, China, Korea, Europe and the Carribean Islands.

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:34 AM
Great point AlabamaCajun. Debt is a great way to fight an enemy, after all that was one of the primary weapons the US used against the Soviets (how effective it was is a matter of debate, but it was used nonetheless.)

I think that crushing debt would be one of the many ways the US would pull out of the Middle East. Anyone see another Vietnam style withdrawl as the endgame?

verfed, call me a dove all you want, genocide is NOT the answer to this war. Responsible policy, mass propaganda and calculated surgical strike would probably do the job with a lot less Nazi-esque methods. Shouldn't you Israel-backers be a little less hasty in advocating the destruction of an entire religion, what with your founders mostly being survivors of the Holocaust? After all the Jewish vote was a landslide for John Kerry, and didn't Ariel repeat his pledge to pull out of the West Bank after Yasser died?

I think one of the worst things Bush has done in office is to call the War On Terror a "crusade." Trust me, the Texan created more terrorists with that speech than Osama did in any of his tapes.

Viva La Resistance!

[edit on 11/19/2004 by The Astral City]

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:47 AM
The war on terror is exactly the same thing as the following

War on Drugs, as u see its not working, why>> cause they are pushing the drugs..
(they refering to the fovernement.)
war on Illiteracy, its funny we have many more times the illiterate people than we did say 20 yrs ago.
Now war on terror, if we really look at what this is about it is about the american people...

lets go over the Patriot Act that is suppost to protect us from such acts of terrorism..

PA = A terrorist act is anything that endangers anothers like.. So according to that Jaywalking is a terrorist act, oh and selling knockoff toys...

the definition of a terrorist is..

Gun Owners, HomeSchoolers, People who believe in the 2nd coming aka Christains, Constitutionalists, People who refer to the constitution alot..

So you tell me, The war on Terror is what again...

ohh yes it has been stated by our governement that the constitution is a terrorist document...

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by The Astral City
Okay, I personally believe that the "War On Terror" has become the worst governmental blunder since The War On Drugs.

Got some news on the war on drugs its not stopped being a blunder, NATO
was quoted today as saying they would not devote peacekeepers to help on the war but has also called on the US to stop chemical destruction of poppie fields as the chemicals can and are harming people in the areas.

The US was not quoted with a response to this appeal but if I hear their response I will drop in and let every one know.

The only other countries that were quoted as asking for world wide support to aid the war on drugs in their countries were not named but the plead was made to NATO which instigated their no commitment decree from themselves in the war on drugs, electing instead to not send in troops but force countries to help each other on their own.

Sounds like an active screw up still in respects to the war on drugs to me.

[edit on 19/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 19/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]

top topics

log in