ishkabibble wrote:Not that were an immediate threat to us.

When would they have been a threat to us? We just had a 2nd attack on our own homeland.

ishkabibble wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...Plans

Wiki? Really? And one that even says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."

ishkabibble wrote:I thought you guys liked smaller government?

I'd fire the IRS before the military, but that's just me....

ishkabibble wrote:We are specifically addressing the intel community, so I don't see how many ships, etc. has anything to do with that.

That's right, because the military has nothing to do with gathering intel

ishkabibble wrote:The CIA cuts started under Bush I and continued under Clinton until Clinton eventually reversed them. Congress creates and passes the budget, and guess which party controlled congress back then? Yep, the Republicans. Plus, Clinton doubled counterterrorism spending over the course of his administration and put Presidential Directive 35 in place, which clearly defined the CIA's counterterrorism role.

Yes, Clinton did increase funds to fight terrorism and pressed for vaccines, tougher laws and giving the FBI additional assistance. BUT, Clinton did do cutbacks of CIA "assets" which impacted our ability to validate data (like the whole nigerian uranium issue) and to track terrorists due to having a low number of agents on the ground. Did Bush I start cuts? Yes he did. Was a Republican Congress in effect? Yes they were. I blame them all. If the general concensus is that Bush II is responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch then the breakdown of intelligence can be laid at Clintons feet as it happened on his watch up till the time that Tenet stepped in and started trying to fix it.

Our whole Gov is a bunch of incompetent d!ck and I see no change on either side any time soon.

ishkabibble wrote:Oh, so Spain's minuscule force being in Iraq instead of home keeps the terrorists at bay. I get it.

What does the military being "at home" have a damn thing to do with what I said? My end point is that giving into the terrorists does nothing. Spain backed down and are still continually fighting terrorlst organizations on their home front and they are being told to dance a tune for them. Screw that. The question still stands, if we cut and run what happens with the terrorists? You really think they are going to melt back into society after making big bad America tuck their tails and run?

ishkabibble wrote:History has also proven that we suck at countering guerrilla warfare.

We need to get their own community working against them in order to succeed.

And how do we do that when their communities are cowering in corners and scared to do anything? From reports coming out of Iraq it seems the community is turning against them as it is.

audtatious wrote:When would they have been a threat to us? We just had a 2nd attack on our own homeland.

Probably not any time soon.

audtatious wrote:Wiki? Really? And one that even says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."

Then look up Office of Special Plans yourself and educate yourself using a different source. I was just proving what I said earlier.

audtatious wrote:I'd fire the IRS before the military, but that's just me....

I'd fire most of Congress and anything dealing with "faith-based initiatives" before any of them.

audtatious wrote:That's right, because the military has nothing to do with gathering intel

Pretty broad generalization. Show me 1: That the military is the driver for counterterrorism intel, and 2: That the counterterrorism intel part of the military was cut.

audtatious wrote:Our whole Gov is a bunch of incompetent d!ck and I see no change on either side any time soon.

The Audtatcity of Despair

audtatious wrote:What does the military being "at home" have a damn thing to do with what I said?

Because, in Spain's case, it's irrelevant whether they are fighting or not. They have to deal with the attacks either way.

audtatious wrote:The question still stands, if we cut and run what happens with the terrorists? You really think they are going to melt back into society after making big bad America tuck their tails and run?

Cut and run, keep fighting militarily, there's still going to be terrorists. It's like the War on Drugs. Interminable and unwinnable. We need a different approach; doing more of the same and expecting a different result is moronic.

audtatious wrote:And how do we do that when their communities are cowering in corners and scared to do anything?

Good question. I might have an answer if I were a social scientist.

audtatious wrote:From reports coming out of Iraq it seems the community is turning against them as it is.

I hope so. But it needs to happen on a massive scale.

ishkabibble wrote:
Because, in Spain's case, it's irrelevant whether they are fighting or not. They have to deal with the attacks either way.

Yep. They got it before, during and after which means the only way to deal with it is to make it too painful to continue. The question then becomes how do you do that to people who kill themselves for their cause and their 99 virgins? I have an idea but most people will not go for it......Pigs blood spread on the bodies (or what they can find of them) before burial as they will be "unclean"

ishkabibble wrote:Cut and run, keep fighting militarily, there's still going to be terrorists. It's like the War on Drugs. Interminable and unwinnable. We need a different approach; doing more of the same and expecting a different result is moronic.

Leaving and expecting a different result is moranic as well. Multi-pronged approach. The people of Iraq want peace and they are beginning to show it. The kooks are kooks and will be dipsh1ts regardless. As I said....Pigs blood.

ishkabibble wrote:Good question. I might have an answer if I were a social scientist.

The answer is simple, Give them a reason to risk their own and their families lives. Again, they are turning in terrorists and "bucking the old rules" daily now.

ishkabibble wrote:I hope so. But it needs to happen on a massive scale.

When people have been abandoned in the past it is taking a while for them to become confident that this time will be different.

Interesting idea with the pig's blood. Go offer your services as a highly-paid consultant to the military.

just make a cartoon of mohamud, that seems to set them off nicely.

ishkabibble wrote:Interesting idea with the pig's blood. Go offer your services as a highly-paid consultant to the military.

Bleeding hearts would not stand for it

audtatious wrote:
The question still stands, if we cut and run what happens with the terrorists? You really think they are going to melt back into society after making big bad America tuck their tails and run?

This is an good debate...but keep things real. Using exaggerated statements like that actually pisses me off. If we left today it's not because we tucked our friggin tails in fear and ran home to Mommy.

It would be because we have NO friggin objectives Matt. I don't mean to say fighting terrorists isn't an objective, I mean to say that we CAN NOT defeat these terrorists. It is impossible...period. They exist in every country over there in one faction or another. They breed like rabbits man.

We may be doing damage to their infrastructure, but the second we leave whether it's tomorrow or 5 years from now we're still going to have terrorlst factions.

We have an entire religion who's goal is to destroy or convert ALL of the world. This enemy is here for the long haul...

Bringing our boys home doesn't signal defeat, it simply means we've done all we can. At this point we're killing off our soldiers and wasting money. If installing a functional Gov is our end goal we can do that with a peace keeping force. Why should the Iraqi people do anything if we do it ALL for them?

My answer in short:

Peace keeping forces to assist with installing a functional Gov and help with training.

Over fund the CIA and NSA and remove the handcuffs so they can actually do the job we're funding them for.

Bring back covert ops in full swing. Work with other special forces units from the various countries, interrogate hostages, act on intel immediately and with extreme prejudice.

If we're allowed to do everything we can, we can accomplish far more with smaller elite forces then we can with 10,000 restrained soldiers. The key is to have the arm chair Gov back home worry about alternative fuels and unemployment...NOT how we fight a war. All of our setbacks have resulted from some BS liberal cocksvcker telling us what we can and can't do.

Either let us fight or bring us home. All or nothing...because this middle of the road crap is just killing our boys off. Unfortunately, we have a Gov that lacks the will power to do what is required. I'm not a puss, I'm not saying we should come home because I don't agree with the war on terrorism, I'm just tired of our leadership fvcking the football.

All or none...

Terrorists will claim it as a victory and see us as ducking and running. That will be their spin on the situation and that will be what we are faced with. You may not like it but that is what's gong to be the perception unless the Iraqi Gov asks us to leave as they have it handled.

IMO I would not have an issue with sniper black-ops taking out a few key people.

Um...who cares what the terrorists think or spin? We can have the liberal media spin it any way we want to once we get the boys back. Then we implement the covert ops, the key is not telling people. Like the gay *** media.

Does not work that way. While invading may have bread some new terrorists, having them spin our leaving as a "win" will have an impact of more people joining their perceived victory.

IMO

But the only other choice is to stay forever...which goes back to the whole...we're keeping our soldiers deployed for to long to often. Thinking Iraq is going to be different after we leave is kinda naive IMO.

The only "staying forever" would mean a base there. Just like we have in other parts of the world. Once the security is taken care of we should and will pull out.

audtatious wrote:I know one of my friends over there that would disagree with you (joined up at 37 to support the US regardless of the outcome). As I was unable to go into the military I have not argued with your POV at all. My POV is do it right or don't do it at all and it seems things are being done right at this point.

really? cause my best bud would tend to agree with WD. Even tho he doesnt like to say it he doesnt know what they are doing and they are sending him on tons of missions out of the wire with a small team (he is crazy and he opted into it cause he didnt want to sit around all day ). He says they cant really do what they need to and it is just getting them screwed over and over again.

You know, you and Brian are correct and I will kindly step aside and STFU as it really does not matter because the Gov is gonna do what they wanna do anyway.

Thats the point Matt...the Gov does whatever they want at the cost of our lives without a single care. So speaking out is our only course of action. I'm not anti war, I'm anti stupid. At this point we're way into stupid...

^ i dont think there is enough people like you and matt to get us out of the stupid tho. So many people in my generation just wanna live their lives and pretend our country isnt going significantly downhill in many ways.

brizanden wrote:^ i dont think there is enough people like you and matt to get us out of the stupid tho. So many people in my generation just wanna live their lives and pretend our country isnt going significantly downhill in many ways.

Should they have to? It's analogous to asking. Should everybody worry and try to find a cure for West Nile Virus? Flesh Eating Bacteria? Global Warming? Earthquake warning systems?

And again, what happened to government by the people, for the people?

Everybody makes the problems more complex by trying to solve every problem and only causing more problems and restrictions as a result.

If the Muslims as a whole are bad, we need to rid the planet of them or figure out how to live peacefully (not) with them.

I will say this until someone listens to me. WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET!!!

Problems grow exponentially with every new person that gets added. Our society can and SHOULD run on far fewer people. The problem is that only stupid people massively reproduce. I can think of two passive religious groups who reproduce like bunnies and keep their generations brainwashed with BS.

Soon we will end up with a situation like China and communism. Lots of dump people with no "common" sense following another dumb person who gets corrupt by power.

One of the US's saving graces up until recently was that we were founded on well thought out principals and for a purpose. Years of idiots have diluted those principals and the over abundance of uneducated, illogical automotons will ruin us before long.

Maybe one day, someone will publish what I said

You crack me up sometimes

Sentientbydesign wrote:If the Muslims as a whole are bad, we need to rid the planet of them or figure out how to live peacefully (not) with them.

See, this is the problem. It's not up to the United States to decide who is allowed to exist and who isn't.

Status as the sole military superpower does not automatically grant us the moral authority to determine that "the muslims as a whole are bad".

This is, of course, leaving aside the fact that waging war on roundabout a billion people is not a feasible proposition. I won't even touch on the fact that the entire idea of what was suggested there is morally reprehensible.

(although, for what it's worth, I *think* you were just trying to illustrate a point, so I'm not really aiming this at you per se)

It's also not up to us to set up democracies in the rest of the world. Iraq was a brutal dictatorship but it was NOT sponsoring terrorism, at least not officially (i.e. state sponsored).

All this terrorism nonsense has gotten wildly out of control. A very small, specific group of people did something horrible to us and thus I definitely support hunting them down and killing them. We are IDIOTS however, if we believe that we can re-mold the world in such a way that it will never produce such people again.

Even thinking that we have the OPTION of "eliminating the world that spawned these terrorists" then we have become very delusional indeed. It's neither the decent human tack to take nor is it even practically feasible.

^well actually.... it does mean we can do what we want, but its not really our morals to be imperalistic anymore.

audtatious wrote:

You crack me up sometimes

You Mods love me. If I wasn't useful, I'd have been banned a long time ago

As for our morals... I don't think the most world renowned morality experts could solve this conundrum. Some of the Nations have given up on conquering, others have not. Have we? What gave anyone the right to divide and conquer to begin with?

Too off topic. I know. So what do we do? STERILIZE THE MOTHER F*%$ERS!!! haha.

Sorry, don't know what got into me there

Throughout history, kingdoms have erradicated those who opposed them or caused them strife. This is the same line of thought. If we don't kill them, we die. If we do kill them, others will likely wage war, we will be morally "wrong" and the whole situation repeats.

Everything has to actually stop and we ALL have to have one agenda...Peace. Until then, all of this will repeat like an obnoxious DVD title page.