Screw Tony Blair And War on Terror

[Attalus]

LOL, Mark, it is not supposed to be comforing, to our enemies, at least.

[Night Stalker]

WWI was a terible war .... chem wpns, trenches, ect ....

WWII was even larger scale .... nukes, fire storms, war on civ populations ....

None of that is even close to the wholesale destruction that modern militaries are capable of today. And I'm only talking about the "conventional" weapons. All of the technologies from WWI and II (nothing really new) have been honed to even greater desructive capabilities in the past 60 years.

Very few actually comprehend the might America and it's allies wields. The only major weakness that we have (asside from our general arrogance) is our politicians ... we put our own limiting factors on our warfare (this is both a good thing and a bad thing BTW). If America were bent on world domination, as "They" would like to attribute to us, our borders would be MUCH larger than they are. I am not arrogant enough to think that the whole world would be painted with Stars n Stripes, but the world would be unplesantly supprised if the American Dogs of War were ever unchained without restrictions.

The Gulf War was an eye opener. The Coalition (read America) shocked the world with it's capabilities. And we didn't even use the best we had at the time. Most of it was old warehouse stock. We've gotten even better in 10 years.

As a soldier (and most military personel have the same sentiment), I don't want to wage war. See soldiers know who does the actual fighting . But we are more that willing to do so to protect our home.

Todays battlefield is nothing like Fortress Europe ever was. It is all encompasing. The Enemy can reach out and touch you from anywhere, at any time. And terrorists don't use the same level of restraint that 1st world militaries use (for the most part). People seem to think we are at Peace, but we are already at War. As for whom is to blame, that is too complicated of an answer. Would everything be better if everyone could live and let live, and "Just get along!"? Sure, but that ain't going to happen any time soon unfortunatly.

[Gabriel]

They war on terror is not being won or fought well. To attack the naions harboring terrorists will once move more into their numbers and cause them to go underground. Sure I think Blair is US brown noseing barstool that can't seem to run this country or his party at all. (I can say this I voted for him) And his blind following of Bush orders will only cause a large number of deaths of us and fellow Europeans, not to mention push us up in the lists of targets.
I sorry to say I have this point of view, of well screw them let just deal with ourselves but it one that has been used by 'them' for a hell of a lot longer then I've held it.
As for the attacks on Iraq that Bush has been all talk about (If he willing to attack Iraq by himself why the hell hasn't he done it yet, instead of going to the U.N. again and again to get help?) I have to ask who's next?

Edit: put da 't on can't.

[ 11-26-2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Gabriel ]

[Iron_Ranger]

Who ever needs to be next is going to be next.

Err...Assuming you ment whos next on the 'list' of USAs tagets in the war of terror of course.

[ 11-26-2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Who ever needs to be next is going to be next. Err...Assuming you ment whos next on the 'list' of USAs tagets in the war of terror of course.

What (Who) else could I of ment? Who next what the next threat after Iraq?
China, North Korea, Russian, Pakistan, India, Baili, Cuba, one of the South America countries. They all won't fold as easliy as Afainstan and Iraq will or have.

[Iron_Ranger]

Well if you want my opoinon on it, it could possiably be Iran or N. Korea after Iraq. It all depends on what happens between now, during, and after the war in Iraq.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Gabriel: quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Who ever needs to be next is going to be next. Err...Assuming you ment whos next on the 'list' of USAs tagets in the war of terror of course.

What (Who) else could I of ment? Who next what the next threat after Iraq?
China, North Korea, Russian, Pakistan, India, Baili, Cuba, one of the South America countries. They all won't fold as easliy as Afainstan and Iraq will or have.[/QUOTE]See above.

Note: This is in no way an underestimation of the capabilities of these countries' militaries.

Also, most of these countries have major economic intrests to considder over considdering war with America. Though China has been flexing latey.

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Well if you want my opoinon on it, it could possiably be Iran or N. Korea after Iraq. It all depends on what happens between now, during, and after the war in Iraq.

I don't think it be Iran, Iran has been friendly to the US,(Aren't they letting the US use their airstrips?) like Pakaistan they get away with terrorist links.
And North Korea is reported (by the US at least) to have the bomb. (Last nation US faced with the bomb, they backed down from them, okay it was China but still.)

[ 11-26-2002, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Gabriel ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Gabriel: Iran has been friendly to the US,(Aren't they letting the US use their airstrips) like Pakaistan they get away with terrorist links.

Is Iran letting the US use it's airbases?

I haven't heard about that!

[Gregster]

Originally posted by Attalus: Several excellent points, here. The primary one that I emphasize is that it takes just one side to make a war, and we were attacked first.

I sorta agree...actually, if only one side does the killing, that would be a "massacre."

Originally posted by Attalus: Second, how do you think that all that rubble of your nightmares is going to be caused by? Certainly not by the Arabs. They couldn't even take Israel, much less the USA and the UK.

Again, I sorta agree...I do not believe that Al Queda, OBL, or Iraq has the capacity to wage and win a beat-up-the-enemy-and-conquer-them old-school war. They do, however, have the capacity to royally screw with us.

I do not take comfort from the fact that they could "only" kill a few thousand citizens, or "occasionally" mount small-scale, willy-nilly strikes that randomly make life hell for us. Our economy has already suffered the ripple effects of terrorism. The two biggest trade buildings in the heart of the New York's business district are now a memory. My best friend, a senior CPA for MillsCorps, was telling me how BILLIONS of dollars related to mall development are now unaccounted for as they were being stored in the WTC...tell me that's not gonna hurt their bottom line (and the bottom line of other companies). And the terrorists have also made flying anywhere in the US a bigger pain in the ass that it used to be-- something I once thought impossible.

No, the PLO and Hamas can't go toe-to-toe with Israel, and I think they know that. However, everyone here who would just love to go for a ride on an Isreali transit bus or do some shopping in a crowded Tel Aviv market, raise your hand...I thought so. Quite frankly, failing all other reasons why my sympathies lie with Isreal, I find it commendable that they haven't slaughtered half the Palestinians wholesale by now. For crying out loud, Hamas has public parades where their goons dress up and high-step around with their AKs and chant "Death to Israel..." I see that and I wonder why the IDF doesn't swoop in with a couple gunships and lay waste to the whoel stupid scene.

Point being, we cannot be a prosperous country without security. And I do not find terrorism on our soil to be a problem we can live with, like a bad back or something.

Originally posted by Attalus: If we were really angry, like at a sneak nuke attack on New York or London, we could convert the Middle East to a sea of radioactive glass in about two hours. We, of course, do not want to do this, but, make no mistake, it is within our capabilities.

And in doing so we would confirm the suspicions of lefties worldwide by being as bad as the terrorists.

Sure, playing armed Whack-A-Mole with the elusive terrorists is time-consuming and frustrating and does not produce splashy newsreel footage that shows how we're winning the big battles that will ultimately lead to victory...but this is a low-intensity asymmetrical war, and it requires a low-intensity solution.

The US and the UK has some of the best-trained, best-equipped, and most highly motivated special operators in the world, bar none (SEALs, Delta, Special Forces, Rangers, SAS, Royal Marine Commandos) who have already proven that they-- especially when backed by straight-leg Marines and Airborne troops-- are capable of eating the once-feared mujahideen guerillas of the Taliban for breakfast and crapping them out before lunch.

[ 11-26-2002, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Gregster ]