• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

apdst said:
That wasn't the only way in Europe during WW2. Obviously, we nuked Japan, but even without that, we would have still defeated the Japanese. We didn't nuke the Filipinos. The Federal Armies didn't nuke the Confederates. The Soviets were making steady headway in Afghanistan, before we started training and arming the mujas and they didn't need nukes.

Yes, you can defeat any enemy. No group, or culture is invincible.
Click to expand...

I don't see that anyone has made any headway in the way we have approached this situation so far. The terrorists just keep coming. They are born and raised into this climate of hatred. It is one generation after another. Like I said, we can slow them down, but we can't stop them all. Too bad we can't just get our people out of these hostile countries and have nothing to do with them. That is the solution I would prefer.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't see that anyone has made any headway in the way we have approached this situation so far. The terrorists just keep coming. They are born and raised into this climate of hatred. It is one generation after another. Like I said, we can slow them down, but we can't stop them all.
Click to expand...

That, I agree with. We haven't used nearly enough violence against the enemy. Had we used the level of violence that we used during WW2, the war in Afghanistan would have been over years ago and, "Taliban", would be a dirty word in Afghanistan.

Before you say that it's impossible, remember that we did it to Germany and Japan during WW2.

Too bad we can't just get our people out of these hostile countries and have nothing to do with them. That is the solution I would prefer.
Click to expand...

That's not a solution; that's a temporary quick fix.
 
L0neW0lf said:
I don't see how that link is useful? other of course than showcasing some peoples' utter lack of common sense.
Click to expand...

What it showcases is that you say you are not from Egypt in one post but claim you are from Egypt in another in order to try to establish some sort of cred.

Above all, it establishes that peopleshould take anything you say with a grain of salt.
 
apdst said:
That, I agree with. We haven't used nearly enough violence against the enemy. Had we used the level of violence that we used during WW2, the war in Afghanistan would have been over years ago and, "Taliban", would be a dirty word in Afghanistan.

Before you say that it's impossible, remember that we did it to Germany and Japan during WW2.



That's not a solution; that's a temporary quick fix.
Click to expand...

Well, I know that in WWII the enemy wore uniforms, and we knew who the enemy was. This is a completely different animal.
 
Has anyone here read The Path Out of the Desert by Ken Pollack? It's pretty much the preeminent framework for dealing with the region.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, I know that in WWII the enemy wore uniforms, and we knew who the enemy was. This is a completely different animal.
Click to expand...

In this war, the enemy is the guy totin' the AK-47 and he's shooting at you.
 
apdst said:
In this war, the enemy is the guy totin' the AK-47 and he's shooting at you.
Click to expand...

Or in front of the embassy/consulate throwing bad things at you, or shooting at you in some cases. Damn shame someone won't let us waste them as they show up. Much easier than hunting them down later.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
In this war, the enemy is the guy totin' the AK-47 and he's shooting at you.
Click to expand...

Come on! You know that's not always the case. There are also cases in which he's a suicide bomber. Don't forget about all of our guys who have died from roadside IEDs too. These guys blend in with the civilians and THEN pop out with their AK-47s and start shooting. This war is completely different than WWII and is MUCH more similar to Vietnam.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Has anyone here read The Path Out of the Desert by Ken Pollack? It's pretty much the preeminent framework for dealing with the region.
Click to expand...

I haven't. But if it doesn't say kill the bad ones and teach the rest to live in the modern world tolerant of others, then it would be pretty useless.
 
Strucky said:
Destroying Mecca and slaughtering millions of people is not a viable option.
Click to expand...
Politely tell them to leave. Then destroy Mecca.

Why do you believe destroying a place sill cause millions to die? Do you believe they will all die of hear attacks when their realize there is not god named Allah?
 
DVSentinel said:
I haven't. But if it doesn't say kill the bad ones and teach the rest to live in the modern world tolerant of others, then it would be pretty useless.
Click to expand...

I guess you'd have to find out. Rarely is complex policy as simple as a sentence.
 
Grant said:
Wow! Vietnam again?

Those old lefties are still around it seems.
Click to expand...

We learned valuable lessons. Too bad the rest of you never did.
 
ChrisL said:
Come on! You know that's not always the case. There are also cases in which he's a suicide bomber. Don't forget about all of our guys who have died from roadside IEDs too. These guys blend in with the civilians and THEN pop out with their AK-47s and start shooting. This war is completely different than WWII and is MUCH more similar to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

IED's are the most ineffective weapon that the enemy has in his arsenal. There are more soldiers dieing from heart attacks than IED's.

The fact that IED's are so ineffective reinforces the old saying that, "the most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle". IOW, you can't replace the infantryman, when it comes to engaging the enemy.
 
Misterveritis said:
Politely tell them to leave. Then destroy Mecca.

Why do you believe destroying a place sill cause millions to die? Do you believe they will all die of hear attacks when their realize there is not god named Allah?
Click to expand...

I can assure you destroying Mecca will NOT suddenly make Muslims into Athiests.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
IED's are the most ineffective weapon that the enemy has in his arsenal. There are more soldiers dieing from heart attacks than IED's.

The fact that IED's are so ineffective reinforces the old saying that, "the most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle". IOW, you can't replace the infantryman, when it comes to engaging the enemy.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree here,IED's in the right hands are very dangerous weapons that had the US military scrambling to find counter measures until proper vehicles like the Buffalo and Cougar were introduced.When troops were getting deployed to Iraq and still getting deployed to Afghanistan,IED training is the most important part of the pre-deployment training they give you because of all the problems we have had with them.
 
apdst said:
IED's are the most ineffective weapon that the enemy has in his arsenal. There are more soldiers dieing from heart attacks than IED's.

The fact that IED's are so ineffective reinforces the old saying that, "the most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle". IOW, you can't replace the infantryman, when it comes to engaging the enemy.
Click to expand...

Our efforts would be far more effective if we took off the kid gloves. Their own religion gives us weapons against them that we don't use because someone in Washington thinks we would offend someone.

These idiots believe that they will receive all those virgins when they get to heaven for being a martyr. But take a close look at their burial rights and beliefs about treating the dead. For suicide bombers, not much we can do unless we find large enough pieces, but the rest we kill. It is easy, castrate the body so all he can do is look at those virgins once he gets there (according to their beliefs) and then don't give them proper burial rights and cleansing prior to burial, better yet, coat them with pigs blood, making them unclean and unable to enter heaven then cremate them. Show full respect for civilians and those who haven't acted against us but do these things to the insurgents and their recruitment drops through the bottom.

Maybe even have our ammo coated with pig blood, making them unclean after they have been shot and when they die.
 
Last edited:
Hairytic said:
Yes, Libya did defend out embasy and our people. Libyans died trying to save our people.
Click to expand...
No. Clearly Libya did not. If it turns out they made what efforts they could in good faith then they are excused and we move on to Egypt which clearly did not.
Bush did horrible on the wars,
Click to expand...
Someone else has already responded. We won quickly. What we did not do and what we need some serious focus is how to wage wars with a view toward what follows. When I was on active duty there was an opportunity while attending the command and general staff college at Leavenworth to also get a masters degree in military history. That degree should spend some time learning how to cope with what follows war.
that is why we are in so much debt and so hated in the Middle East. We can't solve all of our problems in the Middle East with war.
Click to expand...
Well no. We are in debt because of overwhelming, massive entitlement programs.
I don't care if we solve our problems there or not so long as anyone who tries to murder an American knows he will be killed in the attempt along with the Cleric and members of the mosque he belonged to.

We didn't win the Iraq war
Click to expand...
Is Hussein still in power in Iraq? Do the Iraqis run their country? Is there an active WMD program going on in Iraq? Are Iraqis firing on our aircraft regularly? If not I'd say we won.

and we haven't won the Afganistan war.
Click to expand...
The one term Marxist flexible with our enemies president Barrack Hussein Obama has no intention of winning. If he did the rules of engagement would allow it.

We lost men, money, and reputation. We lost more than we won, that is why I say we didn't win those wars.
Click to expand...
Limited wars are fought for limited goals. In some cases, like Obama's Afghani Adventure, he never intended to win. He is bleeding the military that he and many other liberals/progressives/socialists/Marxists loath.

I never said we should take away our rights. However, people should realize how their inflame these situations. Also, freedom of speech was limited constitutionally by the Supreme Court. If speech is designed to inflame and it causes deaths, those who inflamed a situation to the point of it causing deaths can be held accountable for their part in the situation. Like it or not, freedom of speech has its limits.
Click to expand...
You reveal your tyrant's heart even while proclaiming that you do not have one.
 
Hairytic said:
Air strikes by drones effective in Waziristan - Washington Times
““After the great increase in American drone attacks, we could see very few fighters, particularly foreign militants. Previously, they used to roam around in large numbers fearlessly,” shopkeeper Aslam Wazir told The Washington Times by telephone from Mir Ali.”

It seems there has been no need to put boots on the ground. The drone strikes are being effective. The use of drone strikes is much more effective than boots on the ground because the drones can get into remote locations easily and they limit collateral damage. They also limit risk for our troops.
The problems with the Bush was is that he took out the leader of Iraq leaving a power vacuum that he had no plans to deal with. The situation then erupted into a civil was in which we were in the middle of. It also took focus off of Aganistan which was the area the terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks were thriving. Bush also lost focus on the terrorists and even said he wasn’t focused on getting Bin Laden. Obama put the focus back on the terrorists that threaten our country.
Yes, I agree that we messed up the rebuilding and security of the people in Iraq. Had we not invaded them to begin with, it would be a non issue now. I can also see why they stopped cheering us. We stepped in to something that wasn’t out business.

As for Afganistan, I have mixed feelings about that war. But, now that we are in it, I think the drone attacks are being much more effective because now the farmers can make a living again. If they grow drug crops, that is none of our business. We shouldn’t be carrying out drug war overseas. It is a sad side effect to any military action that collateral damage happens. We should only focus on terrorists and take out targets that threaten the US, IMHO. Sending in squads has it’s risks also. Collateral damage is just as likely with boots on the ground as opposed to using drones. It also puts our people at more risk.

Basically, we had no business going into Iraq. That was the Bush war that could have been avoided. Occupation was inevitable in a war where we are taking out a leader. That was the biggest problem when it came to invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

There are a great many people who delude themselves. No boots on the ground -- no win.
 
Misterveritis said:
The one term Marxist flexible with our enemies president Barrack Hussein Obama has no intention of winning.
Click to expand...

What the ****? Only one of those adjectives modifying the subject is even close to correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom