NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, look at it.

If we continue the wars:

There will be more dissent amongst the world-wide Muslim population against the west, America particularly. This will lead to more terrorists, and terrorists with stronger convictions against the west, leading to more terrorist attacks, more westerners, particularly soldiers, dead, and a harder war on terror.

If we stop the wars:

Terrorists will receive a new safe haven to hide and plan their attacks. It will be impossible to root out the terrorists in the surrounding areas. So now the terrorists will be able to plan bigger attacks, and they will be harder to stop as there is no non-covert way to discover plans. While they won't be as convicted against the west, they will still be attacking us.

So the question is: Do you want a safe haven for terrorists to plan their attacks which don't happen as much, or more and more strongly convicted terrorists attacking more often?

It's a loss either way.

You're right, it is a lose-lose situation. I support "staying the course" in Iraq, however, it does need a New and Better strategy to quickly install the Iraqi government with trained police and military.

Al-Queda and other terrorists must not be allowed to have a safe haven or a headquarters to train for their cowardice acts. We must get the muslim world leaders to condemn w/sincererity the terrorists. We must take the fight to the terrorists, where they breed, and to the governments who support and sponsor them.

breaking news! the middle east is fucked!..... and on a lighter note: ze eengleesh! bwahahaha! rolling a cheese! down a hill! teehee! *gallic shrug combined with giggles causing temporary paralysis*

I support "staying the course" in Iraq

Look who's apparently out of the loop. Haven't been watching the telescreen, then? You're not supposed to parrot that line any more. Now you're supposed to be muttering nonsense about "adapting and winning", though I thought I'd made a good case for the Shrub to start using "pull my finger" a few threads back...

I agree it is a lose-lose situation. Personally i think we should get Ben Laden(however you spell his name) and bring out troops home.

It's been lose-lose ever since we (the U.S) started a Civil War back in 2003 (during the overthrow of Saddam).

Look who's apparently out of the loop. Haven't been watching the telescreen, then? You're not supposed to parrot that line any more. Now you're supposed to be muttering nonsense about "adapting and winning", though I thought I'd made a good case for the Shrub to start using "pull my finger" a few threads back...

If you're going to quote me you should atleast quote the whole thing and not just what you want to hear. I do believe, I mentioned that there needs to be a "New Strategy" to win and to finish quickly.

I dunno. I really don't think that it will be that bad if we pull out. Sort of how we were afraid that pulling out of Vietnam would cause the dominoes to fall...which it didn't.

I dunno. I really don't think that it will be that bad if we pull out. Sort of how we were afraid that pulling out of Vietnam would cause the dominoes to fall...which it didn't.

Paranoia is a powerful motivator. If we don't do what Bush wants after all and stick around in Iraq then the terrorists win. It is just like communism. If you don't stick it out then communism would consume the world. Well it didn't. But fear works just as well now as it did years ago with communism. The terror ads now work as well as the Daisy ad did for Johnson.

Utracia: so true. Bush has used (countless times) fear to support his agenda.

Imagine if the majority of America knew this back in 2004 or even 2000? How different would the world have been today?

So if we don't militarily strike back, the terrorists won't attack us as much? I agree. It's worked fantastically for Israel all this time.

Who said that, Ebri? That's why the OP said it's a "lose-lose" situation. We lose either way, but the way to "lose the least" (wtf?) is to retreat.

But Islam and terrorism are both government conspiracies!

Who said that, Ebri? That's why the OP said it's a "lose-lose" situation. We lose either way, but the way to "lose the least" (wtf?) is to retreat.

Okay you fail at reading comprehension and basic world knowledge.

This question was always one that I've been lost on. I wish that we had never gone to war in the first place, because now, It is indeed a lose/lose situation. I wouldnt know where to begin with that entire part of the world though.

Who said that, Ebri? That's why the OP said it's a "lose-lose" situation. We lose either way, but the way to "lose the least" (wtf?) is to retreat.

So "stay the course" is the lesser of two evils? I think the Muslim world would appreciate it if we withdrew instead of continuing our imperial occupation of Iraq. Doing as much infanstructure rebuilding, and Iraqi army training as we can in the next few months and then get the hell out. I hardly think we need to wait for an Iraqi Tet offensive to get us to realize that we should not be there.

So "stay the course" is the lesser of two evils? I think the Muslim world would appreciate it if we withdrew instead of continuing our imperial occupation of Iraq. Doing as much infanstructure rebuilding, and Iraqi army training as we can in the next few months and then get the hell out. I hardly think we need to wait for an Iraqi Tet offensive to get us to realize that we should not be there.

You pretty much responded to the exact opposite of what the person you quoted said.

I don't know what the fuck it is with people here and literacy, or utter lack thereof.

Okay you fail at reading comprehension and basic world knowledge.

O RLY now? That's not even worth an intelligent response, so that's all I'm saying.

Utracia: That's what Bush has been trying to do in the past few years, but it fails. Maybe it's because he doesn't trust them enough?

I say leave 'em alone for a year or so, and see how they're doing. Maybe keep some Special Forces troops in there, but the main troops need to get out. We'll "lose the least". I should tell Bush that slogan...

You pretty much responded to the exact opposite of what the person you quoted said.

I don't know what the fuck it is with people here and literacy, or utter lack thereof.

It might help if you--hell, I don't know--elaborated just a tad, maybe?

O RLY now? That's not even worth an intelligent response, so that's all I'm saying.

Utracia: That's what Bush has been trying to do in the past few years, but it fails. Maybe it's because he doesn't trust them enough?

I say leave 'em alone for a year or so, and see how they're doing. Maybe keep some Special Forces troops in there, but the main troops need to get out. We'll "lose the least". I should tell Bush that slogan...

sigh

The answer to whatever the hell it asked me was in the original post. The author of this thread indicated there would be fewer attacks were there no military strike-backs.

Christ.

O RLY now? That's not even worth an intelligent response, so that's all I'm saying.

Utracia: That's what Bush has been trying to do in the past few years, but it fails. Maybe it's because he doesn't trust them enough?

I say leave 'em alone for a year or so, and see how they're doing. Maybe keep some Special Forces troops in there, but the main troops need to get out. We'll "lose the least". I should tell Bush that slogan...

I always believed Special Forces were the best way to deal with terrorists anyway. You don't invade countries and try to smash the cockroaches with too big an instrument. They just scatter into different cracks and disappear. You need to send in those elite teams into the cracks and take care of them once and for all. No army, or thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of dead civilians or billions of dollars needed.

It might help if you--hell, I don't know--elaborated just a tad, maybe?

"The way to lose the least is to retreat."
"Oh, so you think we should stay on course?"

I actually meant that in regards to the first time you mentioned it, I simply quoted that post since it was the most recent that mentioned the lack of reading comprehension.

Anyway, I don't doubt that we won't gain much from pulling out. The idea here is that we'll stop losing whatever we still do have.

I actually meant that in regards to the first time you mentioned it, I simply quoted that post since it was the most recent that mentioned the lack of reading comprehension.

Anyway, I don't doubt that we won't gain much from pulling out. The idea here is that we'll stop losing whatever we still do have.

I find it appalling that anyone would even suggest any nation ignore attacks from enemies. The "oh, their culture doesn't know any better" excuse is getting lame. As of right now, the United States is a world superpower, although a declining one. Did any previous superpowers just ignore attacks, so long as there weren't "that many" of them? Not in the historical documentation I've been exposed to.

I never said we should ignore attacks from enemies.

I never said we should ignore attacks from enemies.

You asked me to elaborate upon my initial post, which was made in response to what the original poster said--that there would be fewer attacks if we didn't retaliate.

Really, look at it.

If we continue the wars:

There will be more dissent amongst the world-wide Muslim population against the west, America particularly. This will lead to more terrorists, and terrorists with stronger convictions against the west, leading to more terrorist attacks, more westerners, particularly soldiers, dead, and a harder war on terror.

If we stop the wars:

Terrorists will receive a new safe haven to hide and plan their attacks. It will be impossible to root out the terrorists in the surrounding areas. So now the terrorists will be able to plan bigger attacks, and they will be harder to stop as there is no non-covert way to discover plans. While they won't be as convicted against the west, they will still be attacking us.

So the question is: Do you want a safe haven for terrorists to plan their attacks which don't happen as much, or more and more strongly convicted terrorists attacking more often?

It's a loss either way.

Sounds to me like the sort of argument a desperate admin would put forward in order to justify continuing blindly along the same path.

How do you know that Iraq would become a 'training ground' for terrorists? They weren't much liked there before the war, why would they be welcomed now?
Seems to me that what would happen if the US pulled out of Iraq, that poor country would descend into an extremely brutal and vicious civil war - one that would prob last a long time. They'd all be too caught up in killing each other to bother with the US.
This means it'd probably be better for the US to leave.
Morally it's repugnant.
But strategically....?

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but my nickname for four years in a forum I went to was "Demented" because of my first screen name. I dunno if this forum uses nicknames, but it'd be sort of coincidental.

I always believed Special Forces were the best way to deal with terrorists anyway. You don't invade countries and try to smash the cockroaches with too big an instrument. They just scatter into different cracks and disappear. You need to send in those elite teams into the cracks and take care of them once and for all. No army, or thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of dead civilians or billions of dollars needed.

Exactly, what we need is a scalpel, what were using is a broad-sword.

You asked me to elaborate upon my initial post, which was made in response to what the original poster said--that there would be fewer attacks if we didn't retaliate.

Ah, I see. Well, now that I believe I've finally managed to stop misunderstanding, your post makes a great deal more sense.

To respond: Yes, I agree that if we are attacked, we should retaliate. Provided, of course, that they are in fact, the aggressor, and not responding to an earlier attack from us.

To suggest that we turn the other cheek is foolhardy, but I would like to say for th record that I don't believe leaving Iraq would qualify as such.

Exactly, what we need is a scalpel, what were using is a broad-sword.

It would be nice if more people could realize this. Sending an army to catch terrorists can only be counter productive. You won't catch the terrorists to begin with and you also anger the population that you are occupying giving the terrorists more sympathizers to hide among.

Sounds to me like the sort of argument a desperate admin would put forward in order to justify continuing blindly along the same path.

How do you know that Iraq would become a 'training ground' for terrorists? They weren't much liked there before the war, why would they be welcomed now?
Seems to me that what would happen if the US pulled out of Iraq, that poor country would descend into an extremely brutal and vicious civil war - one that would prob last a long time. They'd all be too caught up in killing each other to bother with the US.
This means it'd probably be better for the US to leave.
Morally it's repugnant.
But strategically....?

Well, back then, when SADDAM was in power, they weren't allowed in. But now the terrorists are coming to "liberate" Iraq. The Iraqi people will then love the terrorists. And voila. Terrorist safe-haven. And let's not forget Afghanistan.

Also, Ebri. Look what happened when we weren't sending massive armies into middle eastern countries. An attack every, say, averagely five years. Now we have American and coalition soldiers dieing EVERYDAY. Let's not forget that (attempted) attacks on American and western soil itself have increased, along with the number of terrorists, particularly home-grown terrorists.