• 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!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

Well, there aren't as many terrorists as there were in 2001. We've killed 50,000+ since then. The let's don't go to war because the enemy won't like us talking point is even more useless now than it was when ya'll first started using it.

And the terrorists have grown by more than 50,000 throughout the world since we began our war on terror. It is not a matter of being liked, it is about being counter-protective and the waste in terms of lives and national debt.
 
Yet, after we left the Dominoe Effect actually happened and over a million people died because of it.

And we killed a million during the war. That's makes two million people that died due to our waging war in Vietnam.
 
Do you study the Cold War. At all? I'll ask again, do you know what the Domino Theory (what it was actually called) was as it was applied in SE Asia or even throughout the world?

Haven't we been trading partners with this evil communist state for decades now?
 
As many as there were after we invaded. They just weren't operational, yet.

Anyone that fought against our invasion we called terrorists.

Iraq or Afghanistan freedom fighters = terrorists

This way we could say we killed more terrorists and less civilians.
 
And the terrorists have grown by more than 50,000 throughout the world since we began our war on terror. It is not a matter of being liked, it is about being counter-protective and the waste in terms of lives and national debt.

And, you have the docs to support thoe figures?
 
The bad guys are the bad guys, no matter what terminology you use to identify them.

If they fight against our occupation they must be the bad guys right?
 
And, you have the docs to support thoe figures?

QFT.

And I motion to demand facts supporting these "we killed __" claims . . . there's just no way of us knowing, all numbers of enemy combatants killed in any war are estimates and based on their numerous and unverifiable reports.

Oftne our enemies aren't like us with a system which makes it a goal to maintain an accurate record.
 
QFT.

And I motion to demand facts supporting these "we killed __" claims . . . there's just no way of us knowing, all numbers of enemy combatants killed in any war are estimates and based on their numerous and unverifiable reports.

Oftne our enemies aren't like us with a system which makes it a goal to maintain an accurate record.

That's why body counts are a crucial barometer of success on the battlefield, especially on this battlefield where success is gauged by how much combat power you rob from the enemy.
 
Says the guy who complains whenever he is asked for a source.

Funny how you're not going to insist on docs. Guess you're only interested in source documentation when it's something you disagree with. Looks like you're willing believe whatever you want to believe.

BTW, I've never complained when asked for a source.
 
How the hell would we know how many Terrorists or Insurgents there are? You're both daft. There is no terrorist census and they operate largely under the radar. We only know the ones that come out in public.
 
And, you have the docs to support thoe figures?

My claim was relative to yours. There are more terrorist attacts worldwide than there were after 8 years of our war on terror.

QFT.

And I motion to demand facts supporting these "we killed __" claims . . . there's just no way of us knowing, all numbers of enemy combatants killed in any war are estimates and based on their numerous and unverifiable reports.

Oftne our enemies aren't like us with a system which makes it a goal to maintain an accurate record.

From the Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon last year ~

"Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy."

"As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

"In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."
Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure

"But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington."
RAND Research Brief | How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa'ida
 
My claim was relative to yours. There are more terrorist attacts worldwide than there were after 8 years of our war on terror.



From the Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon last year ~

"Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy."

"As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

"In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."
Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure

"But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington."
RAND Research Brief | How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa'ida

Rand is a liberal organization didn'tcha know. I know this cuz apdst told me so.
 
Rand is a liberal organization didn'tcha know. I know this cuz apdst told me so.

I never said that. But, the Huffington post, which is where that link goes, is very left wing
 
Yes, I know. He was arguing against their study on gays in the military at the time. He felt the only reason they said it was doable was that they where dirty liberalz.

I don't think that's what I said.
 
I never said that. But, the Huffington post, which is where that link goes, is very left wing

The report is by the Rand Corporation which was commissioned by the Pentagon. Huffington Post just wrote an article about it.

You understand that the report is not by the Huffington Post right?
 
So if we were invaded and we fought back, we would be the bad guys?

We would be the bad guys to them, they'd be the bad guys to us. Stop asking leading questions, it doesn't make you appear witty.
 
The report is by the Rand Corporation which was commissioned by the Pentagon. Huffington Post just wrote an article about it.

You understand that the report is not by the Huffington Post right?

Rand is a civilian company. Sorry if I don't totally buy into their idea that we've been defeated.
 
Back
Top Bottom