Political Threads

[Freight Dog]

You want an alternative to our troops?

Fight like they do, except we're in a much better position to do way more damage to them than they are to us.

First of all, we ROYALLY screwed up by allowing them to keep their weapons. We have actually allowed Saddam's troops and local population to keep their weaponry. Whose bright idea was that? Is that part of that "winning their hearts and minds" cuz it obviously is one of the reasons we're losing troops there?

Turn special forces loose on rooting out the insurgents and tell them NO BOUNDARIES. You see, the insurgents are killing anyone they suspect is working with us. I say we one-up that by going to a house of a suspected insurgent, and wiping out the whole family, even the family cat and leave it on display for them, and make the local population think they were killed by "concerned" Iraqis themselves because they were enemies of free and democratic Iraq that the U.S. is trying to build. You get the insurgents scared for their families. That's exactly how Saddam stopped insurgencies against him. If it's a foreigner, same thing... get CIA or mercenaries to go wipe out their family in Syria or Iran or wherever. Make sure they're not safe anywhere in the world.

Then, you block Al-Jazeera signal from ever reaching the local population, and you change that with brainwashing them by getting our message across - showing Iraqi children getting proper healthcare, how they're playing safe. You show schools, you show progress. You also get the message to them that we're NOT taking their land. That we are leaving as soon as they get their feet on the ground and they can take care of themselves. You show our troops gradually leaving Iraq on their TV and say our withdrawal has begun. It takes brainwashing, psyops AND BLOCKING Al-Jazeera crap.

Then you may have imams preaching hatred towards Americans, and urging violence against our troops and their own Iraqis. You ban those, and keep a close eye on everyone there. One attack against our troops, and everyone at that mosque gets it.

Eventually, you will see insurgency drop off for several reasons - fear of retribution, combined with reconstruction results, and brainwashing. Most ordinary Iraqis who are inclined to rebel will see that it doesn't pay to fight the change - might as well enjoy it, and make that seen and known to them - you too can enjoy the change, have a job, make money, provide for your family. They'll be more inclined to do just that.

This kind of a plan is a little too much for your normal American to stomach, but it's how you get these people's attention. They don't know any other way.

 

[Timebuilder]

Interesting ideas. Some we don't have the stomach for, some we do.

Propaganda is a valuable tool, and one we need to exploit more fully. Getting the truth through all the buzz is tough.

There are a lot of reasons we haven't taken Al Jezeera off the air, most of them fall into the "political" category.

 

[Freight Dog]

Interesting ideas. Some we don't have the stomach for, some we do.

Propaganda is a valuable tool, and one we need to exploit more fully. Getting the truth through all the buzz is tough.

There are a lot of reasons we haven't taken Al Jezeera of the air, most of them fall into the "political" category.

Since we are not prepared to fight the unconventional enemy using unconventional means, then I want the troops out, and my vote will reflect that.

You can't use conventional troops against an unconventional enemy - it just doesn't work.

 

[Timebuilder]

Since we are not prepared to fight the unconventional enemy using unconventional means, then I want the troops out, and my vote will reflect that.

I never said we were not willing and able to fight in an unconventional manner, but I DID say that not all of your suggestions would be a good idea considering the world political climate. We can't do everything that Israel has found effective; we discovered that when we decided to improve airline security.

Let's say we do what you want, pull all the troops out.

What does that do? Really think about it.

It tells our enemies that we are soft, and have no stomach for the long battle. It says that we are weak, and ruled by public opinion. They will laugh, saying that women rule our country, which means a lot where they are, much more than it means here. This will make them bold, and emotionally strong.

Those who have served and died or were injured will have done so for nothing, since the Sadaam loyalists will sieze control once again, and a new despot will take power instead of a new constitution.

Iraq will once again become an easy power base for the terrorists, central to Iran, Syria, and the Sudi Penninsula. We will have demonstratd to the world that our bark is much worse than our bite, and emboldened terroists will increase their activity, both here and abroad.

We will have beaten ourselves.

Truly I say to you, a vote against Bush is a vote for the pacifist elements, the ones who see salvation in the UN. It is a vote for weakness, and a vote for complacency. It is a vote against the sovereignty of the United States, and a silent agreement with the ideals of those who would kill us, and destroy our nation.

 

[Freight Dog]

Sorry TB, but I don't buy that argument. I didn't see a massive spread of communism after we pulled out of Vietnam, and I don't think we'll be getting under a massive attack by the terrorists if we pull out of Iraq either.

If we're gonna fight a war, then let's fight it, get the job done and bring our troops home. However, I am 1000% anti-peacekeeping. I am opposed to ANY deployment of our troops for peacekeeping missions. Peacekeeping is not the job of the military. PeaceMAKING is.

Operation Iraqi Freedom has become a peacekeeping mission where our troops are dying daily, and for what cause? Peacekeeping and nation building of a hostile country, and that's something I will never support.

You want to eradicate terrorism? You need special forces and precision guided munitions and a carte blanche to strike anywhere in the world against the terrorists. You don't need conventional troops in there getting killed and swaying the public opinion against the effort of war on terrorism.

 

[flywithastick]

FD and I share some of the same thoughts. The only real way to beat terrorism and the spread of radical, violent fundamentalist Islam involves acts few Americans could stomach.

It's very easy. Special operatives find the close relatives of the perpetrators of these attacks. The entire immediate family pays with their life. The attacks will stop, or they'll run out of people.

It's obvious that the "people" are harboring, voluntarily or not, the bad guys. Maybe even supporting them to a large degree.

This is serious business. They aim to kill *us all*, including our children. It calls for serious action.

I'm pessimistic about the prospects of the US' success against terrorism with politically correct, conventional combat forces. But leaving at this point would be worse for the US overall than no success in Iraq.

I see many years of attacks and further infiltration of our society by the terrorists. Radiological bombs will render several urban areas uninhabitable. Federal bailout of the property owners will end up costing trillions.

 

[Timebuilder]

I wasn't using Vietnam as an example because it has grown into a success. It is going to be the leading capiltalist country in Asia in the next few decades. China will not move as fast, but it will overtake Vietnam when the old communist ways fall away. Once again, the dynamics are completely different.

I don't think that terrorism will "sweep the world" if we pull out, but it WILL increase. Remember, their goal is to wipe us out, not to hurt us every once in a while.

So, think carefully before you play into their hands, and do exactly what they want you to do.

Don't lose your resolve.

 

[Freight Dog]

TB,

My resolve is there. We could shift tactics and order mass withdrawal of our regular troops out of Iraq, and introduce highly mobile special forces backed by Air Force/Navy in their place. Give them a blank check to accomplish the mission, and watch the results.

I'd rather have 20,000 SF troops and their support in there working with and training Iraqis to do the job themselves than have 100,000 of our regular troops there. I think Iraqis would also be more prone to cooperation if that were the case as well. When it comes to dealing with insurgents, I've already said how in the previous post, but you don't need 100,000 troops to do that.

The way things are now.... no way!

 

[Timebuilder]

I'm not even sure we HAVE 20,000 SF troops who are not already deployed. Sure, there are more being trained, but that takes time.

Add to this situation the fact that we are prosecuting a Colonel for firing a gun to scare an Iraqi that gave up information that avoided many casualties.

Stay the course, or lose what we have. That's the choice.

 

[Freight Dog]

I'm not even sure we HAVE 20,000 SF troops who are not already deployed. Sure, there are more being trained, but that takes time.

Add to this situation the fact that we are prosecuting a Colonel for firing a gun to scare an Iraqi that gave up information that avoided many casualties.

By 20,000 troops I was implying everyone - SF troops on the ground, their support and Air Force and Navy in the region. Small strike teams and detachments working with the locals. That's how you handle this.

Secondly, prosecuting Lt. Col. West is the ultimate injustice and slap in the face to all of our troops in harm's way. That type of mentality is PRECISELY why we cannot win this type of war.

You say:

Stay the course, or lose what we have. That's the choice.

What course? What do we have? We have a pissed off country where no one wants us, our young people getting killed. We have nothing but chaos. Get our troops out and do the job right.

 

[Typhoon1244]

It's very easy. Special operatives find the close relatives of the perpetrators of these attacks. The entire immediate family pays with their life. The attacks will stop, or they'll run out of people.

It's obvious that the "people" are harboring, voluntarily or not, the bad guys. Maybe even supporting them to a large degree.

This is serious business. They aim to kill *us all*, including our children. It calls for serious action.

For once, we agree. A distasteful way to fight, and certainly not representative of American idealism...but old-fashioned ideas about warfare will not work with these people.

I tried to explain the rules of war to my wife once. She didn't get it: "they can blow up the World Trade Center, kill women and children, and we can't bomb hospitals? Why the hell not?"

She's got a point...

 

[Timebuilder]

What course? What do we have? We have a pissed off country where no one wants us, our young people getting killed. We have nothing but chaos. Get our troops out and do the job right.

What do we have, indeed.

We have a tyrant dead or in hiding.

We have WMD's no longer easily moved or produced.

We have the beginning of a real democracy in an area where it has never been known. It will be a different strain of democracy, but there will be elections, and they will be monitored.

We have terroism on the defensive. Remember what the best defense is? A good offense.

Staying the course keeps that good offense going.

Pulling out says "You were right. We are weak. We will run if you hurt us. We lack resolve and dedication. You can succeed."


That's a message that we do not want to send.

 

[bart]

The invasion of Iraq in my mind has alot more to do with a military presence in the Middle East than getting rid of Saddam. From a stability standpoint, there is alot to be said for having armor within 24 hours of Teheran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. Maybe it is naive to think that Muslims can have a representative government, maybe it is arrogant to think that they can't.

One thing is for certain, to the degree that the common people run the countries over there, there will be more stability and prosperity for all. And with that, less terrorism, because people will be more empowered to solve their peroblems, rather than encouraged by their leaders to blame them on the evil westerners.

 

[Timebuilder]

You're right.

After experiencing self government, they will know that we are not the "great satan".

Sooner or later, they will figure out that it's Hillary.

 

[Freight Dog]

Ahhh... wishful thinking.