"Fight Al Quaeda in Iraq..OR they'll follow us home"???

If you ask me, the only reason they're keeping up with it is because it plays on the traditional implementation of war. Like we saw in WWII and back, there were basically skirmish lines, where you controlled one side, they controlled the other and the fighting was done in the middle. If you "retreat" or go home, then the enemy overruns your position and follows you.

The war in Iraq isn't like that at all. It's guerrilla warfare, and as any expert will tell you, the side that is more mobile, less encumbered by big numbers and infrastructure has the advantage. There's nothing stopping them from just picking up and moving to the next area, regardless if it's down the street, across the country, or across the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 12 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]477691[/snapback]</div>

I'll bet you if we fought the terrorists here, we might have a few casualties, but we would kick the crap out of the SOBs with homecourt advantage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 12 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]477703[/snapback]</div>

I agree; nicely put.

I think the whole geographical take on the war is pure BS. It also speaks, I'll bet, to some older Hawks...to whom this line of reasoning probably makes perfect sense.

We have the vulnerable infrastructure to defend; 'they' don't. I'd suggest that this dynamic will *always* put us on the defensive in conflicts of this nature. A few other points which come to mind:

*To function, our society depends on the free and rapid transportation of things and ideas. 'Theirs' doesn't.
*Our society is highly specialized, and relies on many different skillsets coming together to make it all work. 'Theirs' doesn't, certainly not to this extent.
*'They' are, as individuals, I'd suggest, far more self-sufficient than we are, and have come to depend less on 'just in time' delivery of goods, etc. than 'we' do to survive.
*Their overall 'needs' are also fewer than ours, which I'd think makes us more vulnerable...since we depend on the availability of so many more things than they do to live the 'lifestyle' that's demanded by our society in the first place (dry cleaning, hair styling, disposable medical supplies, automobiles, cell phones, ATM cards, etc.) 'Their' society can (and does) still function without that stuff...ours, probably not nearly as well.

For these and so many other reasons, I find it difficult to believe that we could ever secure a situation that confines 'them' to 'over there' and 'us' to 'here.'

 

The rightards are in dire need of a geography lesson:

The Al-Qaeda build-up is along the pakistani-afghan border. That is not in Iraq. Close yes (over thar), but not the same.

However, the Al-Qaeda presence *will* grow in Iraq daily, in opposition to the invasion. I suppose that is what rightards want, in order to justify their neo-conism. As if it mattered -- Al Qaeda is a sunni organization, that will be wiped out in due time NOT by the US, but by the Iraq Shii/Iranian force when the US leaves. Way to go rightards !!

To be clear: the *only* thing that the US invasion will accomplish is to bring Iraq under Iran's influence, if not direct control. The US has destroyed Iraq, and Iran is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 12 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]477691[/snapback]</div>

I will respectfully disagree with you.

We are fighting a world wide war already on multiple fronts including iraq, asia, europe (as you witnessed two weeks ago), etc.

they (the bad guys) do not have many true bases of operation where they are free to live and multiple and plot and plan without fear or worry. they had afghanistan - for the most part it is now not a true base - they are constantly under close scrutiny with harm and death never more than a few minutes or hour away. it should be our goal to deny them bases of operation - a simple view of what a base means is... "ownership of a country or sovereign state" - the same way hitler used germany to do evil, and the taliban used afghanistan - it should be our goal to prevent that from happening again --. iraq was a base for terror - whether or not they were involved in 9/11 - iraq was a huge sponsor of terror. our current headache now is iran (another topic). it is difficult to name outside of iran another base of operation for terrorists - yes they have smaller enclaves, but they do not have the power of a state to increase the amount of evil they can and will do.

in terms of following us home - they are already here - and in pretty large numbers. by keeping them on the defensive we divert their energies from plotting and planning and growing to surviving. they understand this - this is why such a large % of bad guys in iraq are not iraqi's but foreign fighters from all over - this battle for iraq is their clarion call. we give up and move out - they will move in and use the power of the state to magnify their evil intentions.

it is my current understanding that not even harry reid and the dems want to pull all the troops out of iraq in any event - but perhaps leave tens of thousands there. this may not be a bad idea if it comes down to it - and i would leave that decision to the military and native iraqi's who seem to be joining with us against al-qaeda (witness the current fighting and results in the al anbar province - a huge accomplishment for us). we should always keep forces forward there and assets to destroy evil at a moments notice.

i think the enemy understands us better than we think. they are using north vietnamese political tactics (arafat spent time there early in his career to learn directly from them how they defeated the US while they lost the military portion of the conflict) brilliantly. it is important for our leadership to understand this and protect us. there are huge difference betwen the vietcong and islamoterrorists - the least of which is a willingness to kill themselves for their cause. i truly fear for us and our safety at this point. if i were choosing sides to take as if this were a chess game, i would take the islamic terrorists side without any hesitiation over taking the US side. i think they have superior tactical and politcal advantages and the definitions of victory and defeat play towards them and against the US. My odds of this conflict going their way is now 51-49 their advantage; if we withdraw from iraq i up the odds to 60-40 for them.

 

"i would take the islamic terrorists side without any hesitiation"
Are you becoming a defeatist Dr. B?
You must want America to lose! JK :lol:

I just want the Republicans to be honest with why they feel we need to be there instead of the boogeyman of terrorism following us home. It's all about keeping the oils shipping routes secure and ensuring future increases in Iraqi exports to the US instead of China. If you can't tell this to the public, we have no business being there. And you yourself Dr. B agreed in a previous thread that oil security IS a big reason we need to be there and not let Iran walk in and take over. (Despite your constant denial that the war was NOT over oil.)

 

We're going to get to see this one in a real dark day for America.

I know it's coming, ya'll may be too stupid to see it coming, or you enjoy living in denial... but in any case, we will be hit by islamic terrorism again in this country.

My sincere hope is that it can be delayed until fall of 2009 or after and that my family and I happen to not be in the target zone.

When that happens, I'll be right here telling all of you idiots how right Bush was...

Until then, enjoy your pie in the sky 'bring the troops home' unthinking rhetoric.

Is PC mirrored? I don't want the server ruined in the attack.

 

"living in denial"
"ya'll may be too stupid"
"you idiots"
"pie in the sky...unthinking rhetoric"

Nice. What sound informative arguments you have there. Your posts are growing more trollish every day.
Are you trying to pick up the slack from Dr. B? His discussions have been growing more civil with less name spewing (except when he gets a chance to bash islamics) and are even interesting to read now. Way to pick up the slack.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 13 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]478078[/snapback]</div>

You mean how incompetent he was for diverting resources that could be used to protect us into unnecessary wars.

 

not to worry guys, it's easy to pull up 2 year old threads on here now, hopefully that's still the case when we're watching president clinton and vice president hussein try to comfort us in our time of loss. Will they invite us to all assume a yoga position to think happy thoughts of the dead among us?

It's summer, the good doc needs his time out in nature, I'm sure he'll be back on his game in the fall. :lol:

Until then someone needs to talk common sense at ya'll even though you're all too thick headed for it to sink in at all.

We don't need the money being spent in Iraq to establish the democrat defense plan in the homeland. Purge all public institutions of morality, open all our borders to anyone who wants in and in some cases require the border states to set up free food, medical, and water booths in the desert to welcome hot and hungry drug smugglers and terrorists.

 

And there it is.
The new troll in action.

I don't like either party, so bash away on the godless, immoral, pinko, etc. democrats., while you make republicans look just as stupid by association to you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 13 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]478106[/snapback]</div>

Anyone else that isn't kissing darwoods butt that wants to be considered a troll? We could start a club.

How am I associated with republicans? I don't like either party, so bash away at the God fearing, moral, blueo, etc. republicans while you make yourself look stupid just for being yourself.

 

Sure ya don't.
What the heck is blueo?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 13 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]478114[/snapback]</div>

guess it's opposite of pinko... what's a pinko?

 

I think everyone is familiar with the use of pinko as a way of connecting someone to the "red" communists. IE Pinko commie.

The correct counter is to refer to fascist pig or ...(I don't want to invoke Goodwin's law).
How's your club membership? Maybe you can find Desynch and have a merry ole time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 13 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]478121[/snapback]</div>

So far, you're the only one not in the club... and also the only one who doesn't qualify to join...

Anyone else want to place your lips on darwoods back pocket as a sign of unjoining my club?

 

How very diplomatic of you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 13 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]478078[/snapback]</div>

I have to give you credit, Daron. You're the first one I've seen pretty much come right out and say that you want to blame everything on the Democrats.

Of course, by saying you hope an attack is delayed until late 2009, you also appear pretty much convinced that the Republicans aren't going to win the White House. I can only assume that if Rudy wins, you'd rather the inevitable attack not come until the House, Senate & White House are all held by Democrats

That way you can continue justifying your fantasy that everything associated with Democrats, liberals and anything else that doesn't fit your narrow-minded view of how the world should work needs to be wiped out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jul 13 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]478155[/snapback]</div>

If Rudy wins, I'd guess we'll maintain a vigilant effort to protect the country. If the demo's win, we're almost certainly going to end up with the troops home before she gets her first intelligence briefing on global terrorism. Why would she listen to that briefing anyhow, we all know the intelligence is all wrong, so she should just lick her finger, put it up in the air and see which way the polls are blowing today and do that..

Demo's win, we relax our position on global terrorism, allow them to have a few months to set up camp here and then watch Boston fall into the ocean.. maybe it will be LA. Those who want to harm America aren't fixated on harming Bush... They want to torpedo America and since 9/11 they have not been able to put it all together. Shouldn't be a problem for them once we stop trying to prevent it.