Help Bush

[Kagemusha]

Im speaking of International terroism here. Clinton and the left consider it still a police matter not a military one as conservatives and Bush do.

Okay.That would be one ridicilous police operation.
About Al Qaida.I believe the bounties will work eventually and you may capture the main figures of Al Qaida.But rooting out any terrorist organisation will be very hard.

[PanzerJaeger]

Be more aggressive abroad. Politically correct wars dont ever work..

[Kagemusha]

Im speechless...

[AggonyDuck]

You're not the only one...

I need to comment on this:

This is the best solution. From all my studies about arabs and the middle east it seems the only thing they respect is strength.

According to your statement arabs respect strength. But if this is true, then why is there clear hate among some arabs against the USA?
If they respect strength, then I'd expect them to respect the USA too..

[Tribesman]

OK your wrong. This has been one of the sticking points on calling this an insurgency as many of the fighters are from the surrounding nations and AQ.
Many Gawain ? are you sure
You are correct though , he was wrong about the 99% , he was wrong by less than 2%

[Don Corleone]

I've said this before, in the "King of America" thread somebody started. I'm not going to rehash it all, but I essentially believe in a very non-interventionist foreign policy.

At the the first sign of difficulty in any peacekeeping missions, my troops would shoot to defend themselves and immediately pull out. No sitting around without ammo moaning about how if only there was something they could do. Messes in other countries would be primarily the responsibility of said other countries to clean up.

Of course, you'd probably be posting a thread about what you could do to help the heartless bastard, President Corleone, that won't put his men on the line to stop lawlessness in other countries.

[Kagemusha]

Thats a good one.
One question.Do you guys really believe that anything your current government does will end up being bashed around by uss bunch off liberals?Are there any common ground?

[Don Corleone]

Honestly? Yes. I really do. Let's take Bosnia....

First, the US was a bunch of evil, cowardly ingrates who wouldn't act to stop an ongoing human travesty. But then we did, and overnight, the criticism changed to what a bunch of heavy handed imperialist thugs we all are.

I get the impression that nothing short of a bunch of unarmed soldiers, taking shot after shot to the chest, forming a human shield between the Serbs and the Bosnian muslims, would have satisfied the European Left. The first guy who shot back in self defense would have been branded a war criminal. I'm exaggerating my views, but only slightly.

[Kagemusha]

What i have seen in the backroom here.I havent stumbled upon any european who classifies as an conservative in American standard.I dont even consider myself very lefty at all but in this forum i seem to be.After all its pretty intresting.But what you sayed before.I dont like the war in Iraq but i appreciate the soldiers fighting there or anywhere.Its not their fault that they are there.They are just doing as ordered.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Many Gawain ? are you sure
You are correct though , he was wrong about the 99% , he was wrong by less than 2%

I suppose you can back that up with figures.

July 06, 2004
Foreign fighters in Iraq

[posted by swamphopper]

USATODAY ran the story, Foreign detainees are few in Iraq. These statistics are supposed to imply that the Bush administration is overstating the involvement of foreign fighters in Iraq.

Although the article acknowledges the presence of funding from outside sources (namely Syria), the implication of the article is that Americans are exaggerating. They even quote a Marine officer: "In Ramadi, where Marines have fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters 'are all locals,' says Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. 'There are very few foreign fighters.'"

To put the article in perspective, however, consider the following quotes from Army Specialist Joe Roche's post detailing his unit's involvement in fighting against Muqtada Al-Sadr's uprising. Read it for yourself and then decide if USATODAY is giving a balanced perspective on the involvement of foreign fighters in Iraq.


Here's Joe Roche:

The 1st Armored Division, of which the 16th Engineers are a part, led the charge against Muqtada Al-Sadr's uprising. The 16th was in the front in all this in Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Baghdad. And contrary to the negative news coverage, the reality is that we have won some major victories that are having dramatic impact region-wide. I don't think most Americans are aware of the seriousness of the threats we confronted and defeated.

Sadr's Mahdi Army was backed by extensive foreign fighters and a huge amount support. Iran's formidable Al-Quds Army (named for the conquest of Jerusalem, Israel) directly assisted their attacks against us. They trained some 1,200 of Sadr's fighters at three camps they ran along the Iran-Iraq border at Qasr Shireen, 'Ilam, and Hamid. This was backed by what one Iranian defector to us has said was $70 million dollars a month given by Iranian agents to our enemies -- from which Sadr's forces were directly funded in just the past few months by up to $80 million more. The Iranian Embassy distributed some 400 satellite phones in Baghdad to Sadr's forces, while 2,700 apartments and rooms were rented in Karbala and Najaf as safe houses. Sadr's ability to influence the Iraqi people was further enhanced by 300 "reporters" and "technicians" working for his newspaper, radio and television networks -- persons who are actually members of the Al-Quds Army and Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

We also faced Chechen snipers in Sadr's forces who were being paid anywhere from $500 to $10,000, depending on differing accounts, for each American soldier they hit. One sniper hit five soldiers in less then a minute-and-a-half, killing one with a shot in the neck. These mercenaries were sending this money back to Al-Qaeda-allied guerrillas in Chechnya to fight the Russians.

We also have constantly faced Lebanese and Palestinian Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon mixed in the fighting. Their claim to fame for the killing of 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 is something we have had to consider every day and on every mission.

Also it seems any Sunni who tries to work with the government gets assassinated. Whats up with that ?

[Franconicus]

What if said countries refuse to hand them over do we go to option number 1?

Then I'd give them in the hands of Panzer

[Franconicus]

OK your wrong. This has been one of the sticking points on calling this an insurgency as many of the fighters are from the surrounding nations and AQ. Their killing Iraqis mostly . So who are they fighting the US or the people of Iraq?

Gawain, you know that it is not as simple as that.
In the US they like to believe that all the enemies in Iraq come from other countries. In Europe they are willing to believe they are all Iraqis. Both is true and both is wrong.

[Franconicus]

Number one. We are not occupying Iraq. Number two the UN is worthless, get over it..

It is worthless because the US wants them to be.

Well thats what most on the left believe. I guess we could have treated Hitler and the Nazis as a criminals also.

I waited a long time for someone to bring Hitler in this thread. By the way, you treated them as criminal, don't you remember?

[Tribesman]

Classic Gawain , you post an article where it says that the statistics back me up , a commanding officer backs me up , but an NCO talking about an operation from a long time ago , against a group that is now part of the Iraqi government , military and police force , says you are right oh yes , an operation who eventually produced statistics that also back me up .

Oh stop it , it hurts when I laugh this much

[Samurai Waki]

Well First and Foremost, if everybody on the forum thinks that the US is occupying Iraq, then I am sure most Iraqis think we are occupying Iraq. We need to send in many many more troops... at least 100,000. Then we need to all but sever Al Jazeera from Iraqi TVs, the Iraqi government needs to broadcast it's own Iraqi propaganda station. We need hourly border patrols, via helicopters, and airplanes using highly advanced infra-red and other optical surveillance equipment. The US military is not soft, it's the American people themselves who cannot handle the war, most soldiers dislike Bush for making them go there... but out of every soldier I have met that has been in Iraq, they say that they need to be there for a long time, maybe even a decade or more, and most are willing to do that. We need to rekindle our bonds with Europe and the UN, also we need to draft a UN Right to Act Bill, allowing UN authority to be ruled under an elected Chain of Command, and giving UN peacekeepers the right to not only defend themselves, but the right to defend the country and the people they are supposed to defend. From this point, we could slowly move troops out of Iraq, whilst UN forces move in, and the Iraqi Military rebuilds itself. For every US soldier that is withdrawn from Iraq, the Iraqis must have One Fully Trained and Equipped soldier to replace him.
Also the Iraqis must make a clear and well thought out constitution that scrutinizes anyone with deep religious affiliation, military affiliations, or outside affiliations to be able to hold office. Kurdistan needs to be recognized as a dependent nation, so they have their own constitution and civil rights, outside of Baghdad, but would be economic and military dependants. Any act of aggression by the Southern Iraqis (shi'ites or Sunnis) would be treated as an act of war and would activate US military support.
Hmmm... can't think much beyond that.

And Remember! Always Tip your Waitress!

[lars573]

^Unfortunatly everything you said is either impossible or never going to happen.

[Samurai Waki]

^Unfortunatly everything you said is either impossible or never going to happen.

I know... wishful thinking on my part

[Revelation]

First I would kill Bush - he makes more terrorists than he kills.

That would be a good step. There certainly would be some great after assasination parties out there!

But as murder is not really condoned by the majority of the civilized world, I guess we need another solution.

As much as I despise the bastard, I believe he has done the right thing, in his own screwed up sort of way.
First, regardless of whether the Iraqi's needed liberating or not he needed a complete show of stregnth after 9/11 as a warning to the rest of the world. I think Iraq was just a convenient political target. After neutralizing Afghanistan, I raq was basically the next on the list.His reasoning behind the attack was misguided. Perhaps he would have gained more support had he used an excuse he could actually back with facts, rather than making up stories to suit his own ends. I wonder whether he is now regretting his decision to enter Iraq in the capacity of freedom fighter. Maybe a quick slash and burn approach would have been more economical , not only in monetary terms, but human lives also. He's certainly stirred up the hornets nest, and America will continue to pay for it for years to come.
Pakistan also gives refuge to a huge network of terrorists, regardless of the media statements saying otherwise,but the political ramifications of attacking them would have been devastating.

On the other hand, the USA has had it's finger in so many pies over the last 50 years, it can't expect not to get burned now and again. 5000 odd lives in 9/11 is nothing in comparison to the toll it has inflicted worldwide over the years.
Rwanda lost 1 000 000 to genocide and barely made headlines for a day a year or so after the event. America loses 1/200th of that and it's all we hear for months on end. Where's the justice?

Genocide and how the world did nothing

[Divinus Arma]

Close America's porous borders.

Turn the entire middle east into a sheet of glass.

We must destroy our enemies before they destroy us.

But first we should all try to be friends.

[Divinus Arma]

5000 odd lives in 9/11 is nothing in comparison to the toll it has inflicted worldwide over the years.

You have the right to your opinion, but I think this statement represents incomplete thinking.

"Inflicted"?


What have Americans "Inflicted"? Aside from virtually ridding the world of many threats to freedom throughout history?

If it wasn't for America and our allies, the earth would be covered in the darkness of Nazis, Communists, or religious fundamentalists.

9/11 was an event which by America sees itself as completely changed. Prior to 9/11, the perception was that we are safe and invulnerable. Now that our lip has been bloodied, it has occurred just how vulnerable we really are. 9/11 created a national change in conciousness. A nuke could really happen.

As per the news on Rwanda and other miserbale places in the world, what are we going to do to fix it right this second? Not a damn thing. Look how screwed up Iraq is and it is costing America an unrecoverable fortune to fix.

Fixing the whole world is idealistic and impossible. A clear example Liberal thinking. Nothing wrong with being idealistic but keep your feet on the ground while your head is in the clouds.

"Let's help everyone, everywhere."

"Who will pay for it?"

"The rich!"

"So how will they afford to employ people and invest?"

"Who cares. They're rich and I'm not. Let's take away their money and give it to someone else. Like Africa or the poor urban mother with eight crack babies, or me. Oh. And kill Bush."

[PanzerJaeger]

Rwanda lost 1 000 000 to genocide and barely made headlines for a day a year or so after the event. America loses 1/200th of that and it's all we hear for months on end. Where's the justice?

Its not America's fault other people are less civilized and resort to genocide.

The same people who condemn America for not acting in the Sudan, Rwanda, ect. condemn America for taking out a dictator in Iraq.

Why doesnt Europe take on the African problems instead of blocking action in the UN? They havent dismantled their militaries quite enough to lose to African nations - yet.

[Don Corleone]

Its not America's fault other people are less civilized and resort to genocide.

The same people who condemn America for not acting in the Sudan, Rwanda, ect. condemn America for taking out a dictator in Iraq.

Why doesnt Europe take on the African problems instead of blocking action in the UN? They havent dismantled their militaries quite enough to lose to African nations - yet.

More importantly, if we did act, we'd be imperialist Nazis, taking over the world. I've come to recognize that Europe and the US are on two different paths. This is all part of a propaganda campaign by Europe to 'blame the US for EVERYTHING'. A boy in East Timor catches a cold? Must be the United States' fault.

[Franconicus]

Revelation, Ruanda is another topic. Not helping Ruanda is bad, but not a reason for not trying to fix the terror.

Panzer, if there is a silly comment coming from Australia why do you use this for anti-europeism?

[Ser Clegane]

First I would kill Bush

Turn the entire middle east into a sheet of glass.

It's hard to tell if such statements are meant seriously or not, but I am pretty sure that they are not constructive answers to a serious questions, but are rather meant to be baits that are likely to drag discussions down into the gutter.

I would appreciate if people could limit their violent fantasies to e.g., playing the TW games or Battlefield 2, instead of carrying them to discussions where they are not really helpful.

Thanks for your attention

[Franconicus]

Et tu, Don?

[Kagemusha]

Its not America's fault other people are less civilized and resort to genocide.

The same people who condemn America for not acting in the Sudan, Rwanda, ect. condemn America for taking out a dictator in Iraq.

Why doesnt Europe take on the African problems instead of blocking action in the UN? They havent dismantled their militaries quite enough to lose to African nations - yet.

There are European troops under UN mandat at Sierra Leone as we speak.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There are European troops under UN mandat at Sierra Leone as we speak.

Wow thats comforting.

There were UN troops in Rwanda were there not? It also seems that UN troops commit attrocites where ever they go but dont garner near the attention of US troops in such natters,

[Kagemusha]

There were also US troops at Somalia?For not wery long if i recall?Is the real problem that Europeans are willing to send troops under UN mandat but not without it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There were also US troops at Somalia?For not wery long if i recall?Is the real problem that Europeans are willing to send troops under UN mandat but not without it?

Same with the US at this point. We would be better off with no UN.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Close America's porous borders.

Turn the entire middle east into a sheet of glass.

We must destroy our enemies before they destroy us.

But first we should all try to be friends.

Are you being serious? Or has a brilliant moment of satire slipped right past me yet again?

If it wasn't for America and our allies, the earth would be covered in the darkness of Nazis, Communists, or religious fundamentalists.

Don't really see the relevance to the discussion, but let's run with it. Nazis? Maybe, depends who the allies are. Communists? Probably, though whether that is a "darkness" or not is debatable. Fundamentalists? Absolutely not. America is currently reaping the results of Machiavellian policies in the Middle-East during the Cold War, where Islamic fundamentalism was promoted to combat the influence of the USSR, and only aided its growth.

Anyhow, right now I would say the most successful strategy for Bush would depend on how he feels about diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. Probably in the short term, a zero-tolerance approach on events in Iraq, with terrorists brutally and totally repressed even with dire consequences for the general civilian population would be a good bet, followed by a swift withdrawal after achieving the goal (whatever that may be) that he set out to do.

However, that may hold longer-term political costs, to diplomatic efforts in general and the perception of Bush in the Middle-East. Certainly, I don't particularly envy Dubya's position but he can always leave it to his successor if he can't solve it, so it isn't a tremendous problem for him.