Oh, well gee, I'm sorry I wasn't as "civil" to you in regards to your assinine statements about us not pursuing terrorists and joining the camp that feels we are in a "war for oil", meaning you too think Bush is some sort of war criminal. All of these idiotic implications point DIRECTLY to the troops and I, for one, am damn tired of you liberals bashing this country, our troops, and their mission. Afghanistan as the main base of terrorist operations? Only in your mind. This is a global war. It is not something that's contained in Afghanistan. Again, you need to stop believing everything you hear from leftist websites that are filled with people that haven't been out of the safety of their own homes and have never laced up one combat boot. This is a global effort and we will all be better off when you people on the left realize that. As for you people thinking that Saudi is the problem since some of the hi-jackers came from there and none came from Iraq, the hi-jackers weren't from Afghanistan either, it was just one base of operations. Atta was Egyptian. We aren't FIGHTING a country, we are fighting an ideology. After Iraq they will set up somewhere else. This will be a war that will be fought on several fronts and occur over several years. Liberals don't have the guts to see anything through. You guys have very short memories. You'd rather capitulate and appease than take out the enemy. Here's a deal for you, sit back and support the damn troops. THEY will do the job that you guys who are too weak refuse to do.

You had 8 GDamn years under Clinton. We were attacked several times. Bush was in office for less than 9 months. We haven't been attacked since. Liberals cannot protect this country from an enemy that views everything they do as weak and inferior.

RebelKev Wrote:After Iraq they will set up somewhere else. This will be a war that will be fought on several fronts and occur over several years.

Where else do you see the possibility of US intervention? I once thought Syria was a possibility, but they've weakened themselves substantially, and it might be politically difficult at this stage. Iran has certainly earned some attention in this regard, but could be way too costly.

RebelKev Wrote:We aren't FIGHTING a country, we are fighting an ideology.

If that is the case we are in for DECADES of death and destruction that will once again sneak up on unsuspecting citizens in another string of domestic terror attacks while accumulating an astronomical debt that won't be paid for many more decades if ever. The only way you can truly win a war on an ideology is if governments permeate and propagandize everyones mind as well as install an Orwellian ideology spreading fear to all those who dissent from the status quo - in essence, an attack on the free-thinking individual.

moloch_322 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:We aren't FIGHTING a country, we are fighting an ideology.

If that is the case we are in for DECADES of death and destruction that will once again sneak up on unsuspecting citizens in another string of domestic terror attacks while accumulating an astronomical debt that won't be paid for many more decades if ever. The only way you can truly win a war on an ideology is if governments permeate and propagandize everyones mind as well as install an Orwellian ideology spreading fear to all those who dissent from the status quo - in essence, an attack on the free-thinking individual.

....and your plan would be? Isolate ourselves? Appease? Capitulate? You mean EVERYTHING I said you Dems want to do? I rest my case. You guys had 8 years. You essentially did nothing. You lost your turn, sit down. You leftists need to understand that they want global control, NOT just an Islamic Middle-East. If you think that then you haven't been paying attention, maybe selective listening? There are Mullahs calling for an Islamic U.K. as well as a daily push to eradicate, subjugate, or convert all of Africa and much of the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

You libs sit back with that attitude and wonder why you keep losing elections. Why? Because when it comes to national defense the Democratic party looks like a bunch of candyass wimps in this day and age.

I45Owl Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:After Iraq they will set up somewhere else. This will be a war that will be fought on several fronts and occur over several years.

Where else do you see the possibility of US intervention? I once thought Syria was a possibility, but they've weakened themselves substantially, and it might be politically difficult at this stage. Iran has certainly earned some attention in this regard, but could be way too costly.

Iran will have to be dealt with. The good thing about that is that the international community seems to have grown a pair of balls. As for Syria, hell no they haven't stopped their BS. Theyare just acting in a more covert manner. Iraq will do a ton of good in a region that is already walking on egg shells when it comes to their population and them wanting freedom. I believe that Africa and Indonesia will be the next areas that will need to be dealt with.

This has to be all or nothing. There is no middle ground to "We Want All of You Dead, Converted, or Subjugated". People that think this has everything to do with Israel being in "Arab Land", which is complete and total bull****, are naive, ignorant at worst. Make no mistake, the radical Muslims do want global control. The sad part about it is they have plenty of help from liberals the world over.

RebelKev, please list me some countries, governments, individuals, corporations, religions, ect. who DON'T want global control!!??! Regarding religion, Christians and Muslims have been duking it out for centuries for global dominance! For corporations, where to begin: McDonald's, Wal Mart, Microsoft to name a few, have crossed into and effected cultures worldwide. As for countries wanting to have global control look towards the EU and China, without mentioning the USA. I assume that you are aware of the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) right? This is not a left or right, Democrat/Republican issue. It could very well be an attack on Liberty, Freedom, and the enlightened individual - as well as ideologies - in the form of doublethink by global elites from all angles of civilization.

So what is your plan, Moloch? With your "vast" experience and knowledge, I am sure you have one....so what is it? I will give you time to check moveon.org.

..........waiting.........

I said it before...you reap what you sow. That ideology which we are fighting against has recreated itself, and made a new generation of rebels, revolutionaries, terrorists, dissenters or whatever spin various media outlets have labelled them. OBL is relatively obsolete now, there's many more like him out there that we have not even heard from yet. It is something that cannot be controlled, but only by completely invasive measures. In essence there is no ending for a 'War on Terror' it is impossible - it is the most faceless of enemies that has no political, racial, religious, or gender boundaries. As to Iraq, we are so deep in it that there is absolutely no turning back, either way there will be no true victor. If we immediately withdraw we leave an unstable country to the wolves. If we hold out until stablilty is declared, which will most likely not be for a long time, what guarantee do we have that they will remain an Ally or that their future leaders won't attain WMD's or perform atroscities against humanity similar to Saddam himself? Historically speaking, it happened before where a government or regime was overthrown with outside assistance only to put a new leader who was just as, if not more, viscious as the one before him.

RebelKev Wrote:You need to get off the moonbat websites and, apparently, leave the defense of this nation up to the grown-ups. You might need to realize that your leftist moonbat liberal politicians are placing their own careers over the defense of this nation. There is a reason you liberals aren't trusted with the protection of this nation. Clinton should have went into Iraq and Afghanistan in the '90's, but was too busy getting a blowjob to handle the growing threat. He instead chose to lob a few missiles at aspirin factories and go to war with Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina/Kosovo and side with the same people we are fighting today. No, not Muslims, I am referring to Muslim terrorists and Al Qaeda. Didn't know they were in those countries, did you? Now you FRACK do.

RebelKev Wrote:As for the 1st paragraph, where the "F" do you think the hi-jackers came from?

As for the second, Read my above post. Apparently you have no effin idea what is going on with this war and only rely on dumb*** leftist websites for your source of information.

Let me see if I can make this clear enough for even a liberal,

WE ARE EFFIN IN AFGHANISTAN AND CHASING THE BASTARDS!!!!!


GDamn you liberals are ignorant.

Kev, I have no interest in joining this debate but I think you ought to consider that it's this style of discussion that made the Spin Room three guys talking to each other a couple of months ago. Sorry to sound like a den mother, but I kind of like it around here and would like to feel that we can have a spirited discussion without it devolving into insults and condescension.

moloch_322 Wrote:I said it before...you reap what you sow. That ideology which we are fighting against has recreated itself, and made a new generation of rebels, revolutionaries, terrorists, dissenters or whatever spin various media outlets have labelled them. OBL is relatively obsolete now, there's many more like him out there that we have not even heard from yet. It is something that cannot be controlled, but only by completely invasive measures. In essence there is no ending for a 'War on Terror' it is impossible - it is the most faceless of enemies that has no political, racial, religious, or gender boundaries. As to Iraq, we are so deep in it that there is absolutely no turning back, either way there will be no true victor. If we immediately withdraw we leave an unstable country to the wolves. If we hold out until stablilty is declared, which will most likely not be for a long time, what guarantee do we have that they will remain an Ally or that their future leaders won't attain WMD's or perform atroscities against humanity similar to Saddam himself? Historically speaking, it happened before where a government or regime was overthrown with outside assistance only to put a new leader who was just as, if not more, viscious as the one before him.

Mkay, and your solution, Ie. plan, would be? 3K Americans were killed on 9/11. Is that acceptible? 3K a year? Every 6 months? 3 months? A month? Again, what is your plan?

Brookes Owl Wrote:Kev, I have no interest in joining this debate but I think you ought to consider that it's this style of discussion that made the Spin Room three guys talking to each other a couple of months ago. Sorry to sound like a den mother, but I kind of like it around here and would like to feel that we can have a spirited discussion without it devolving into insults and condescension.

Not my fault liberals can't argue their point with any intelligence. I was there. I will be going back. They don't know what the **** they are talking about and no, I can't be cordial about people downing this country and the troops. Ain't gonna happen.

Kev,

You need to chill out man.

All he was saying is that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan before going to war in Iraq. That is a message I can support. If we had the troops in Iraq searching for Bin laden, we may have found him by now.

uhmump95 Wrote:Kev,

You need to chill out man.

All he was saying is that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan before going to war in Iraq. That is a message I can support. If we had the troops in Iraq searching for Bin laden, we may have found him by now.

Where the hell do you guys get that we aren't trying to find Bin Laden? You guys need to stick to the trail you're on. Remain consistent. You're pissed because we are in Iraq, a sovereign nation, but have no problem with us going into Pakistan, another sovereign nation? Bin Laden is marginalized. Many reports reveal that he may be dead. I firmly believe that he IS dead. He is losing this war. The best way for him to rally his troops is to put out another dumb*** video, yet he hasn't. Why? His deputy that he was seen with time after time has, why hasn't Bin Laden? This isn't ABOUT Bin Laden and there is no way you Liberals will convince me otherwise. This is about your hatred for Bush, plain and simple. Its about Bush doing something Clinton didn't have the balls to do and the cowardice that is being portrayed daily by the liberal politicians. Getting Bin Laden isn't going to end terrorism. That type of thinking borders on ignorance. Someone else will step up to the plate, as Zarqawi has.

Now, as FOR Bin Laden, how effin long did it take us to find Eric Rudolph in our OWN damn country?

....but, nice to see that you guys are still bitter in the face of the most democratically-held election in Iraq's history. I guess its true, liberals only feel freedom is for "certain" people.


By the way, again,

WE ARE IN AFGHNISTAN. You could put the 1st, 3rd, 25th, and 2nd Infantry Divisions in Afghanistan, it would change nothing. The conflict in Afghanistan is better handled using covert operations and the Afghan forces.......which was the main damn point to begin with as it is with the Iraqi forces.

Damn I'm glad liberals aren't in office anymore.

Kev,

Did you stop taking your meds today?

You are a little fiestier than normal.

No one has accused the administration of not looking for Bin Laden. We are just saying that if you had the manpower in Afghanistan that we have in Iraq, we would have found him by now.

uhmump95 Wrote:Kev,

Did you stop taking your meds today?

You are a little fiestier than normal.

No one has accused the administration of not looking for Bin Laden. We are just saying that if you had the manpower in Afghanistan that we have in Iraq, we would have found him by now.

Yes, NIU007 did.

Quote:I thought we should have finished the job in Afghanistan - we had nowhere near the same number of people in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq, even though the terrorists were based in Afghanistan.

Quote:There are despots in various areas of the globe, and there are terrorists in numerous locations as well. We just happened to invade the one that had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Also, it was easier to attain a 'victory' in the open lands of the Middle East than hunt terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Read between the lines. This is the same damn thing the leftist politicians and people of Democratic Underground and Moveon.org have been saying.

Ie. We left Afghanistan, forgot about Bin Laden, and invaded Iraq for their oil.

It's total bull**** and can be disproved in 3.5 nanoseconds. Yes, I DO get pissed off when I hear this BS. I used to let it go in one ear and out the other. However, this BS rhetoric is becoming dangerous to our troops, not that most Democrats give a damn about'em anyway.

If I act like I'm off my meds, that's defamation BTW, I don't, nor have I ever taken "meds", you can blame morons like Kennedy, Kerrys dumb***, Dean's stupidass, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and Durbin.

RebelKev Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:No one has accused the administration of not looking for Bin Laden. We are just saying that if you had the manpower in Afghanistan that we have in Iraq, we would have found him by now.

Yes, NIU007 did.

Quote:I thought we should have finished the job in Afghanistan - we had nowhere near the same number of people in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq, even though the terrorists were based in Afghanistan.

Quote:There are despots in various areas of the globe, and there are terrorists in numerous locations as well. We just happened to invade the one that had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Also, it was easier to attain a 'victory' in the open lands of the Middle East than hunt terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Read between the lines. This is the same damn thing the leftist politicians and people of Democratic Underground and Moveon.org have been saying.

Ie. We left Afghanistan, forgot about Bin Laden, and invaded Iraq for their oil.

It's total bull**** and can be disproved in 3.5 nanoseconds. Yes, I DO get pissed off when I hear this BS. I used to let it go in one ear and out the other. However, this BS rhetoric is becoming dangerous to our troops, not that most Democrats give a damn about'em anyway.

Pointing out that the work in Afghanistan is unfinished is not at all unreasonable. The country is still unstable. While Al Qaeda's network and the Taliban have been largely defeated and/or neutralized, there are plenty of problems to solve related to narcotics, infrastructure, border security, etc, (not to mention Bin Laden). It's fair to ask if those problems would be closer to being solved if some of the resources now in Iraq were available in Afghanistan.

Brookes Owl Wrote:Pointing out that the work in Afghanistan is unfinished is not at all unreasonable. The country is still unstable. While Al Qaeda's network and the Taliban have been largely defeated and/or neutralized, there are plenty of problems to solve related to narcotics, inftrastructure, border security, etc, (not to mention Bin Laden). It's fair to ask if those problems would be closer to being solved if some of the resources now in Iraq were available in Afghanistan.

Soo, were you down in Kandahar? Somewhere near Herat? Jalalabad? You sound like you are speaking with authority, so I am wondering where you get your experience from. Please don't tell me CNN.

As for Afghanistan being unfinished, wrong. The war is finished. The Taliban is out of power. The Afghani forces are trained and hunting down the remainder. They have a fully-functional Democratically-elected government. If you want to say the country is unstable because of the issues you stated, then to be consistent, you must also believe the country that you are living in is also unstable.

...and again. No, the forces in Iraq would not make the mission of finding Bin Laden any easier. You could have 10 divisions in Afghanistan. They STILL wouldn't be able to just march into Pakistan. You understand they are nuclear, right? As I stated before, Afghanistan is stable. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are on the run and are located in pockets in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda ALSO isn't restricted to just that region. They are in Iraq, Iran, Syria, England, France, and believe it or not, here in the US.

By the way, this isn't about something as innocuous as "asking questions". This has more to do with "Getting Bush". If a Democrat were in office you'd hear none of this.

...and I know about Delay and the Republicans when Clinton sent us into Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. You'll also have a hard time trying to convince me that the two are the same.

RebelKev Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:Pointing out that the work in Afghanistan is unfinished is not at all unreasonable. The country is still unstable. While Al Qaeda's network and the Taliban have been largely defeated and/or neutralized, there are plenty of problems to solve related to narcotics, inftrastructure, border security, etc, (not to mention Bin Laden). It's fair to ask if those problems would be closer to being solved if some of the resources now in Iraq were available in Afghanistan.

Soo, were you down in Kandahar? Somewhere near Herat? Jalalabad? You sound like you are speaking with authority, so I am wondering where you get your experience from. Please don't tell me CNN.

As for Afghanistan being unfinished, wrong. The war is finished. The Taliban is out of power. The Afghani forces are trained and hunting down the remainder. They have a fully-functional Democratically-elected government. If you want to say the country is unstable because of the issues you stated, then to be consistent, you must also believe the country that you are living in is also unstable.

...and again. No, the forces in Iraq would not make the mission of finding Bin Laden any easier. You could have 10 divisions in Afghanistan. They STILL wouldn't be able to just march into Pakistan. You understand they are nuclear, right? As I stated before, Afghanistan is stable. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are on the run and are located in pockets in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda ALSO isn't restricted to just that region. They are in Iraq, Iran, Syria, England, France, and believe it or not, here in the US.

By the way, this isn't about something as innocuous as "asking questions". This has more to do with "Getting Bush". If a Democrat were in office you'd hear none of this.

...and I know about Delay and the Republicans when Clinton sent us into Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. You'll also have a hard time trying to convince me that the two are the same.

Well, I can give you all sorts of references, but I don't think it's that necessary. 60% of Afghanistan's GDP is drug-based revenue. I can't imagine how that country will be stable if that persists. The IMF is talking about safety and stability, as an example. And while having a democratically elected government is a great accomplishment, it's certainly not a guarantee of stability. Iraq won't be stable when THEIR constitutional, democratically elected government takes office. And I agree with (even mentioned it in my post above) your point that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are basically neutralized in that country. I suspect the hunt for Bin Laden may be worth more politically than strategically.

Final point: I'm very pleased and impressed that you're willing to share your insights on the Middle East here. You're obviously highly qualified to do so and no one with any sense here would argue that point. That's why it's so disconcerting to me that you would convey (to me anyway) such an aggressive tone. You don't need to talk to me like I'm a three year old. Just tell me you disagree and I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Cool?

RebelKev Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Kev,

Did you stop taking your meds today?

You are a little fiestier than normal.

No one has accused the administration of not looking for Bin Laden. We are just saying that if you had the manpower in Afghanistan that we have in Iraq, we would have found him by now.

Yes, NIU007 did.

Quote:I thought we should have finished the job in Afghanistan - we had nowhere near the same number of people in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq, even though the terrorists were based in Afghanistan.

Quote:There are despots in various areas of the globe, and there are terrorists in numerous locations as well. We just happened to invade the one that had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Also, it was easier to attain a 'victory' in the open lands of the Middle East than hunt terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Read between the lines. This is the same damn thing the leftist politicians and people of Democratic Underground and Moveon.org have been saying.

Ie. We left Afghanistan, forgot about Bin Laden, and invaded Iraq for their oil.

It's total bull**** and can be disproved in 3.5 nanoseconds. Yes, I DO get pissed off when I hear this BS. I used to let it go in one ear and out the other. However, this BS rhetoric is becoming dangerous to our troops, not that most Democrats give a damn about'em anyway.

If I act like I'm off my meds, that's defamation BTW, I don't, nor have I ever taken "meds", you can blame morons like Kennedy, Kerrys dumb***, Dean's stupidass, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and Durbin.

To be fair, I should have said we HAVE more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan, not HAD. I assumed it went without saying that we are still in Afghanistan and still hunting for the terrorists (I don't know or care what the 'liberal media' are saying). The others had it right, I just think more concentration on that rather than siphoning off forces to Iraq would have been better.

Look, please do all of us soldiers a foar and shut up.. We're not losing.. We won the damn war.. We took Iraq and we're still holding and in charge of Iraq. We have resistance yes, but it doesn't mean we've lost like I saw earlier 70+% turnout for the election.

You tell the families of those 3,000 dead that we lost and they died for nothing.. Everyone who thinks we've lost are ******* peices of ****.. We've won we're actually only over there protecting freaking Iraq.. They're not strong enough to run they're country yet, it would be to easy for someone else to come in and take over.

All you freaking people that thinks they know whats going on, you seriously don't and every time I read these damn posts it pisses me off.. Go over there see the damn country see the past and now the present and tell me we've lost.

By the way, since you guys know everything, we don't wanna come home.. Most of us want to stay an finish this damn thing, if not for Iraq, then for our brothers that died serving..

82ND Airborne Div..
2/319thAFAR

TM