Who will protect us from Fox News? 53 replies

Please wait...

Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#51 16 years ago
NiteStrykerYes but I mean countries harboring terrorists, as in supplying them with money, weapons, etc, not as in terrorists sneaking in and staying for a long time.

And Iraq supplied these terrorists with money and weapons? Its easily said that Afghanistan did as well, but Iraq? There is no factual evidence to prove that Iraq actually did supply terrorists, unless you count Palestinian militants, but every Muslim Middle Eastern nations does. Iran funds Hizbollah along with Syria and Lebanon and have done so for more than ten years. Why not invade them? Would it be too hard not picking on an impoverished nation with a lack of an actual military? It should be stated than that the US also funds terrorism through funding and providing for most of Israel's military who routinely enter Palestinian towns and refugee camps and either tear down or bomb civilian homes, killing at best one 'terrorist' and nearly 20 civilians at the same time.

American forces have the stigma of being 'invincible' due to their easy victories over smaller weaker nations. Campaigns like Iraq, Afghanistan and some other smaller wars like Panama and Grenada has given American forces the idea they cannot be beaten as they have invaded and occupied a nation in less than two months. The prior Vietnam war proved otherwise but these campaigns have occured since.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#52 16 years ago
Octovonevery Muslim Middle Eastern nations does. Iran funds Hizbollah along with Syria and Lebanon and have done so for more than ten years. Why not invade them?

Iraq seemed like the biggest threat at the time. I am sure if we could, we would get to all the countries either through violence or more diplomatic ways, but we are not stopping with Iraq here. This war against terrorism will continue to all countries actively harboring terrorist. No, that does not mean we will invade them all and boot their leaders.




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#53 16 years ago

1. Octovon, your misinterpretation of American force strength is unfortunate. Our current military is pretty hard to beat, but it's not invincible. We know that. We know we have three times the combat power of any other nation. We know we have the best training and (usually) best equipment on Earth, but the American military does not consider itself invincible. We have places like the National Training Center (NTC), Top Gun, and Red Flag to improve the skills of our personnel and get them to realize they can be beaten. It is this realization that makes our military so good.

The reason we did badly in Vietnam is that we didn't use the entire American military, because a great deal of them were in Germany, and we used the forces we did have poorly. We used a stronger force (U.S., ARVN) against a weaker force (VC and NVA), but the force advantage was neutralized by our unwillingness to go full throttle. We didn't attack strategic targets, and we didn't engage them on our terms. Because of this, Vietnam was a five-year stalemate. If we had really done all we could to win in 1968 after Tet, we'd have taken Hanoi by the moon landings, if not sooner. However, the public refused to suffer the ineptness of the brass and the politicians any longer, so they started demonstrating against it.

2. Octovon, we're picking on the impoverished nations with no militaries because those are the only nations causing trouble. Also, our funding for the Israeli military has gone down to a trickle, courtesy of former Pres. Clinton. You are right in saying that the entire Arab world funds terror.

3. Arsehole, the question is, why did the Bush administration find Iraq to be the greatest threat? There was little concrete evidence. The only terrorism he was facilitating was Palestinian terror, and so is everyone else. Other than that, he was keeping pretty quiet. Iraq was not actively seeking WMDs. The 9/11 report said so. Iran and North Korea were and are. Iran actively supports terror attacks against us and may have supported the 9/11 attackers. The 9/11 report said so. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq who couldn't find anything. Our current weapons inspectors can't find anything. How was Iraq a threat?




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#54 16 years ago

OctovonAnd Iraq supplied these terrorists with money and weapons? Its easily said that Afghanistan did as well, but Iraq? There is no factual evidence to prove that Iraq actually did supply terrorists, unless you count Palestinian militants, but every Muslim Middle Eastern nations does. Iran funds Hizbollah along with Syria and Lebanon and have done so for more than ten years. Why not invade them? Would it be too hard not picking on an impoverished nation with a lack of an actual military? It should be stated than that the US also funds terrorism through funding and providing for most of Israel's military who routinely enter Palestinian towns and refugee camps and either tear down or bomb civilian homes, killing at best one 'terrorist' and nearly 20 civilians at the same time.

American forces have the stigma of being 'invincible' due to their easy victories over smaller weaker nations. Campaigns like Iraq, Afghanistan and some other smaller wars like Panama and Grenada has given American forces the idea they cannot be beaten as they have invaded and occupied a nation in less than two months. The prior Vietnam war proved otherwise but these campaigns have occured since.

(1) You make a good point about Syria and Lebanon, I honestly would not be opposed to a war with them, as they harbor terrorists. (2)There is no proof that Iraq did supply currently, but they had in the past....and one reason we went to war with them was not primarly because of terrorism ties, but because of the violations of UN resolutions. (3) American Forces are pretty near invincible....we have alot of firepower and alot of troops. Vietnam was moreso a political war with guns than a real war with guns....