The "war on terror" is a "mistake",

I agree about taking the fight to the terrorist. But where do they get their power from? Exerting force over the population, that is the ground that we need to sieze and hold, this starts attrition in the areas where they can garner support and exert their power.

Now terrorist organisations will not wither and die if we cut them off from the population centres, but they will find it less easy to exert influence. From there you can truly start the battle for hearts and minds, whilst shaping the battlefield to your advantage.

At the end of the day this is a time consuming and manpower intensive methodolgy, but it does work, but if you don't put boots on the ground and hold it, all you're ever doing is converting live rounds into empty cases and making tracks in the sand.
 
How to really fight it:
When terrorists successfully launch an attack against the US...
1) Find out who they are.
2) Destroy everything they own. Including schools and hospitals.
3) Destroy their farmland.
4) Make sure all the weapons are released at the hands of a female operator.
5) Send a note telling them that you'd love to play, but you don't have time and that unfortunately as an opponent, they're not quite worth the life of a single American and in fact, weren't worth waking up the men for so we've sent the women to take care of the neusance.
 
Partisan said:
I agree about taking the fight to the terrorist. But where do they get their power from? Exerting force over the population, that is the ground that we need to sieze and hold, this starts attrition in the areas where they can garner support and exert their power.
Click to expand...
And where do they stand when they cannot engage their enemy? If we are not within reach, they have no enemy to engage, and this will lessen their pull with the populace.

They can rant and rave all they like, but if they are not able to show that they can poke their enemy in the eye, the people will soon lose patience with their promises. At the moment it is seen by the general population as a David and Goliath battle, and every time they have a small win against our troops on the ground, it gains local support as they demonstrate that they can take us on and win on their own terms.

The whole idea is to make them fight on our terms.
 
Once again, you go on your big horses and you speak like soldiers... Or rather like cowboys who have to kill some red skins to live peacefully...

Terrorists arent "evil creatures from hell"... They are human beings just like you and me. It's just that they are "PISSED OFF" about the political system...

The list is long. When Saddam was seen as a legitimate head of the government... Anyone trying to resist him was seen as a terrorist...

So, every person trying to resist a political regime seen as "legitimate" is seen as a "terrorist"...

Now, that's crazy. We have to let some room for different political groups, or even apolicital groups (tribal systems)... If we want some real peace.

Because without that, we will be at war against terrorism as long as mankind is in this universe.

This is a political battle. The military should limit the blooshed... Not add to it.
 
LeMask said:
Once again, you go on your big horses and you speak like soldiers... Or rather like cowboys who have to kill some red skins to live peacefully...

Terrorists arent "evil creatures from hell"... They are human beings just like you and me. It's just that they are "PISSED OFF" about the political system...

The list is long. When Saddam was seen as a legitimate head of the government... Anyone trying to resist him was seen as a terrorist...

So, every person trying to resist a political regime seen as "legitimate" is seen as a "terrorist"...

Now, that's crazy. We have to let some room for different political groups, or even apolicital groups (tribal systems)... If we want some real peace.

Because without that, we will be at war against terrorism as long as mankind is in this universe.

This is a political battle. The military should limit the blooshed... Not add to it.
Click to expand...

LeMask, those are pretty words and nice sentiments. The reality is those terrorists came to MY country and attacked innocent people. Had they only targeted the military that would have been a whole different matter.
 
Well AB_short_momma, let me tell you something that might interest you...

They did come to your country to attack you... But where were you when the criminals in your country were rapping the world in your name? with your tax money? With your father/son/brother's blood?

If your memory started recording the 9/11/2001... You have memory problems.

The day you will deal with your problems seriously... You will be able to give them lessons.

Before kicking Saddam's butt... Try kicking your presidents butts for shaking his hands... and selling him weapons of mass destruction...

Well, I dont want to protect the terrorists or to make them excuses...

But I think that we are not nations against each others... Or good against evil...

It's honest people against criminals... We have bigger criminals in our own countries... And you want us to spend billions to fight pissed off tribesmen in caves?

No sir, I want to fix the sewers in our own countries first.

I can make you a list of things to do. It will be hard or even impossible for some... But it will be always easier than funding a war without limits in time and space...

- Not recognize every nation not respecting international laws + human rights.
- Support every resistance movement inside these country at the condition of respecting these principles.
- Set an international minimum wage.
- Support education all over the world.

And maybe that these people will start listening to us rather than trying to shoot us down...

Because if we are going to send the army every time we meet a different culture... We wont have any peace...

And I dont want peace. I want a war against criminals. I can support any war... Even desperate battles... As long as we are not fighting honest people who dont see the world like us...

By the way, I'm in vacations right now. Good day to you ladies and gentlemen from North Africa. Cheers.
 
No, my memory didn't start at 9-11. I have had family in our military as long as I can remember.

As for fighting criminals, that is what terrorists are. We are in Iraq fighting the crime of terrorism. We are there helping the Iraquis. We are not there to conquer and take over that land. Our war is not against the country

*side note: enjoy your vacation
 
LeMask said:
Once again, you go on your big horses and you speak like soldiers... Or rather like cowboys who have to kill some red skins to live peacefully...

Coming from a ranching family I take exception to that remark.

Terrorists arent "evil creatures from hell"... They are human beings just like you and me. It's just that they are "PISSED OFF" about the political system...

Lots of people don't like political systems. ONLY A VERY FEW use violence to kill and maim innocents to "get their point across". Those that do use violence are terrorists and rank on my scale as somewhere between roaches and rattlesnakes. Best to just end their exisistence when the opportunity presents itself.

The list is long. When Saddam was seen as a legitimate head of the government... Anyone trying to resist him was seen as a terrorist...

Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils. Was it right? maybe not. But some countries continued to regard him as legitimate even after the UN Embargo......but you know that don't you.

So, every person trying to resist a political regime seen as "legitimate" is seen as a "terrorist"...

Only if the tactics they use are terror tactics.

Now, that's crazy. We have to let some room for different political groups, or even apolicital groups (tribal systems)... If we want some real peace.

Again tactics dicate how the group is labeled.

Because without that, we will be at war against terrorism as long as mankind is in this universe.

Terrorism has always exsisted and will always exsist. It only depends on to what extent the world allows as to how it will thrive. However if terror is kowtowed to it will thrive and become profitable.

This is a political battle. The military should limit the blooshed... Not add to it.

Again. Terrorists won't be stopped by appeasement and nice words and sentiments. Terrorists need to be rooted out and dealt with, prison or death.
Click to expand...

LeMask said:
Well AB_short_momma, let me tell you something that might interest you...

They did come to your country to attack you... But where were you when the criminals in your country were rapping the world in your name? with your tax money? With your father/son/brother's blood?

Examples? Or just some more of your ohhhh soooo hip and contemporary appeasement the world can be one ,lets hug the bunnies and send Tango's peanut butter and perfume clap trap?

If your memory started recording the 9/11/2001... You have memory problems.

Well I remember WTC 93, USS Cole, The attack on the Skipper of Vincennes in San Diego, Marine Barracks Bierut, Military Barracks Saudi, The placement of IED's or rockets being fired at several US Embassy's in Latin America circa 1980's Should I go on?

The day you will deal with your problems seriously... You will be able to give them lessons.

Appears to me that certain terroristic elements are being dealt with seriously and thats what has your speedos in a bunch.

Before kicking Saddam's butt... Try kicking your presidents butts for shaking his hands... and selling him weapons of mass destruction...

Yeah and maybe you might look to Bonn and Berlin and Paris and Moscow as they were also selling the Butcher arms and weapons and assisting in helping him build his infrastructure. Some even violated a UN embargo to do it (OMG)

But I know its much easier to blame the "Great Satan".

Well, I dont want to protect the terrorists or to make them excuses...

Really? Well you seem to be doin a bang up job at just that.

But I think that we are not nations against each others... Or good against evil...

BS. If you target as a matter of tactics, that is you prefer to hit nonmilitary targets and target civilians because it's easier and it "gets your message across" or you prefer to hide among and use civilians to shield yourself from your enemy you are evil.

It's honest people against criminals... We have bigger criminals in our own countries... And you want us to spend billions to fight pissed off tribesmen in caves?

Have you missed the part that these poor pitiful tribesman train and export terror. Not to mention what they do to their own countrymen who don't accept the convaluted and skewed version of their religion they espouse?

No sir, I want to fix the sewers in our own countries first.

Your not talking about terrorism your talking about domestic crime. Apples and Catfish comparison.

I can make you a list of things to do. It will be hard or even impossible for some... But it will be always easier than funding a war without limits in time and space...

- Not recognize every nation not respecting international laws + human rights.

By who's definition?

- Support every resistance movement inside these country at the condition of respecting these principles.

Some these resistance movements are far worse than the goverments they wish to depose. So you would support all groups regardless of orientation or goals. Never work.

- Set an international minimum wage.

And hows that gonna work? Who pays for that?

- Support education all over the world.

If you think certain countries would allow the support of anything but rote learning Madrassas for their lower classes and will jump on board of this...........pass the hash pipe.

And maybe that these people will start listening to us rather than trying to shoot us down...

Apparently your missing the point, or ignoring it (I'll take ignoring for 500 Alex) especially concerning Radical Islam. While this might work in certain areas of the world say Latin America maybe. Radical Islam's goal is the Islamafication of the world thru jihad nothing less nothing. Pour all the money in you want, they'll take it and continue Jihad against you.

Because if we are going to send the army every time we meet a different culture... We wont have any peace...

It's not the culture. It's the actions of part of that culture.

And I dont want peace. I want a war against criminals. I can support any war... Even desperate battles... As long as we are not fighting honest people who dont see the world like us...

Where are you not seeing terrorists as criminals? Since when do honest people commit acts of terror?

By the way, I'm in vacations right now. Good day to you ladies and gentlemen from North Africa. Cheers.
Click to expand...


Responses embedded
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
And where do they stand when they cannot engage their enemy? If we are not within reach, they have no enemy to engage, and this will lessen their pull with the populace.

They can rant and rave all they like, but if they are not able to show that they can poke their enemy in the eye, the people will soon lose patience with their promises. At the moment it is seen by the general population as a David and Goliath battle, and every time they have a small win against our troops on the ground, it gains local support as they demonstrate that they can take us on and win on their own terms.

The whole idea is to make them fight on our terms.
Click to expand...

Precisely. See what it is the enemy ultimately wants and deny it. What they really want is a confrontation and American casualties. Though I can see what they're doing with Iraq, there is no point in being in Afghanistan.
The better idea: pull out and send in the UAVs.
 
senojekips said:
And where do they stand when they cannot engage their enemy? If we are not within reach, they have no enemy to engage, and this will lessen their pull with the populace.

They can rant and rave all they like, but if they are not able to show that they can poke their enemy in the eye, the people will soon lose patience with their promises. At the moment it is seen by the general population as a David and Goliath battle, and every time they have a small win against our troops on the ground, it gains local support as they demonstrate that they can take us on and win on their own terms.

The whole idea is to make them fight on our terms.
Click to expand...

True, but if our stated aim is to protect the populace, or rebuild infrastructure, or deliver aid - how are you going to do that remotely? Last time I looked it was boots on the ground that sieze and hold ground, if that is the mission, then that is what needs to be done.

Of course the terrorist wants to engage us on their terms - no one said that our enemies had to be stupid. But we need to commit to a clear long term plan, using all of our stregths to isolate and deprive the terrorist of his / her support bases. We can do this throught technology to augment our troops - but it is still the soldier that will have to claim the ground and defend it, if the mission requires it.
 
Partisan said:
True, but if our stated aim is to protect the populace, or rebuild infrastructure, or deliver aid - how are you going to do that remotely? Last time I looked it was boots on the ground that sieze and hold ground, if that is the mission, then that is what needs to be done.
Click to expand...
What people do in their own country is their business. If what you are implying were even remotely true, we would have been in Zimbabwe and got rid of Mugabe years ago. We are not in the game of protecting the world's poor and downtrodden,... Period!!... it sounds great, but it is just so much window dressing. we will do a small amount if we think there is a benefit to us somewhere down the track, and that's all.

Of course the terrorist wants to engage us on their terms - no one said that our enemies had to be stupid. But we need to commit to a clear long term plan, using all of our stregths to isolate and deprive the terrorist of his / her support bases. We can do this throught technology to augment our troops - but it is still the soldier that will have to claim the ground and defend it, if the mission requires it.
Click to expand...
Because they wish to engage us on their terms is the very reason I said what I did. We must not allow them to engage us at all, least of all, on their terms.
 
Helping the world's poor from their leaders... you're basically asking for colonization again.
Truth is, criminals around the world use pictures of starving kids to extort aid from first world countries. If you want to help people in need, you won't believe the amount of opportunities you'll find in your own country.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Helping the world's poor from their leaders... you're basically asking for colonization again.
Truth is, criminals around the world use pictures of starving kids to extort aid from first world countries. If you want to help people in need, you won't believe the amount of opportunities you'll find in your own country.
Click to expand...
I help people in need nearly every day, but I do it in my own country, and I certainly don't invade another sovereign country before so I can use it as an excuse to justify me being there.

People who don't want colonisation generally don't want our help either. In our eyes, they may need it,... and if there are no strings attached they will certainly take it, but they don't want our help if it involves them losing their ability to run their own country, and this is generally what got them into the mess in the first place. In short, they want to have it all their way and for nothing. It's sad but true, but the world just doesn't work that way.

We are getting a long way from the topic here.
 
Possibly true, but as far as I'm concerned there is no logical connection. The war on terror is supposed to keep us safe in our countries, and sometimes we have to control events or persons in other countries to allow us to do our job. All I am saying is that we do not have to invade the country to do it, we can control events in those countries using out technological might without ever risking our men on the ground.

It's a bit like a battle between bare knuckle street fighter and a well educated sniper who has never had to get his knees dirty. He doesn't knock on the prizefighters door and offer to punch his lights out, he waits until the knuckle dragger comes out his front door and gives him a 180gn mineral supplement him from the other side of the street.
 
No arguments here.
Somehow the nation building ended up becoming an integral part of the whole war on terror. But it shouldn't be.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
No arguments here.
Somehow the nation building ended up becoming an integral part of the whole war on terror. But it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued, how can building a stable nation out of what was once an anarchic playground for gunmen be bad?

It is the failed and failing states that not only provide a recruiting ground for terrorist groups; (although supposedly civilised Western countries are doing the same)! It is in these countries / regions which are unable to project law and order that the terrorists can base themselves and move with impunity. In some cases even becoming a shadow government.

I would argue that nation building could and should be considered to be part of a fight against a terrorist group, if appropriate.

Much as I hate to say it at least a nation will produce politicians who will talk (as nauseum), which is better than the "just kill 'em, kill 'em all" strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top