Why we fight.

[usarmy18]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12924965/

Read the story.

Yea, we've really fabricated the whole "World Terrorist Jihad thing." Read the article then try to tell me that isn't the same damn thing that we (the US) has been saying we're fighting since 9/11.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12924965/
Yea, we've really fabricated the whole "World Terrorist Jihad thing."

I don't think anyone has claimed that the US has fabricated the "World Terrorist Jihad thing". I think that the accusation is that it has first exaggerated and then perpetuated the threat with it's foreign policy.

Read the article then try to tell me that isn't the same damn thing that we (the US) has been saying we're fighting since 9/11.

Well given,

In public statements and in interviews with Arab media, Nasar said he was happy to work with al-Qaeda but emphasized that he was an independent operator. His theories of decentralization had already taken shape: It would be a mistake, he said, for the global movement to pin its hopes on a single group or set of leaders.

fighting al-Qaeda would have little impact on those followers of Nasar. Little here to say that fighting a war is the way to changing these people's minds.

The people you speak of obviously have some cross to bear against the West, rightly or wrongly. When Britain was attacked, the general populace said that it would only serve to "stiffen our resolve" in fighting terrorists. When we attack Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, why do we think it will result in the civilians welcoming us with open arms?

 

[Verbose]

No, this might be about who you fight.

But how you fight is rather the issue here.

100.000+ guys in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side has some decent minds as well?

 

[Samson]

What I have been saying, as I belive this and other people have, is that the fight is not against a monolithic organisasion but a number of loosely assosiated groups with divergent aims, but brought together by religion and a desire to see the middle east free of western milatry influence. This seems to be confirmed by your link;

In public statements and in interviews with Arab media, Nasar said he was happy to work with al-Qaeda but emphasized that he was an independent operator. His theories of decentralization had already taken shape: It would be a mistake, he said, for the global movement to pin its hopes on a single group or set of leaders.

 

[usarmy18]

I don't think anyone has claimed that the US has fabricated the "World Terrorist Jihad thing". I think that the accusation is that it has first exaggerated and then perpetuated the threat with it's foreign policy.

I've heard quite a few claims on this forum that Bush and the gang made up the whole terrorist threat for oil and similiar garbage as that.

fighting al-Qaeda would have little impact on those followers of Nasar. Little here to say that fighting a war is the way to changing these people's minds.

The people you speak of obviously have some cross to bear against the West, rightly or wrongly. When Britain was attacked, the general populace said that it would only serve to "stiffen our resolve" in fighting terrorists. When we attack Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, why do we think it will result in the civilians welcoming us with open arms?

We haven't said we're just fighting Al-Qaeda, but Terrorism everywhere. Iraq is just the central front. We have similiar, though on a much smaller scale, little adventures in countries around the world that don't get a lot of publicity. Also, that article clearly showed that the Jihadi's planned on continuing to fight us after 9/11, thus a war was needed. Why should we sit on our hands while our enemies move around us?

When we first liberated Iraq, perhaps you missed the video of Iraqi citizens pulling down the statue of Saddam. You've also perhaps not spoken with a soldier who was in the Invasion force and found out how the Iraqi's welcomed our troops. For the most part, it was with arms wide open and they welcomed them as liberators. Sadly, now three years later, the populace has turned against us it seems. Though I have strong suspicions that the media has a good hand in portraying the Iraqi's as hating us.

No, this might be about who you fight.

No, this is why we fight. They had all this planned out well before 9/11. You're foolish if you think that because of our counter-attack on Afghanistan that suddenly the Jihadi's just woke up and thought, "Damn the infidels! Let's kill them all!"

But how you fight is rather the issue here.

Ok, Mr. High ranking know it all Civ General, sir.
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

100.000+ guys in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side has some decent minds as well?

138,000 soldiers in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side wants to blow us to hell.

What I have been saying, as I belive this and other people have, is that the fight is not against a monolithic organisasion but a number of loosely assosiated groups with divergent aims, but brought together by religion and a desire to see the middle east free of western milatry influence. This seems to be confirmed by your link;

They were brought together to destroy the west. Our military presence in the Middle East was laughable before the Second Iraq war. We had some planes and Marines around Iraq. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp this. These guys want to see us dead, no matter if we give in and pull out or not. They will still continue to try to bathe the West in blood till one side is gone. Either Islamic Extremism is going to have to be beat down so bad it'll never recover, or we're going to have decades of terrorist attacks against innocent people like on 9/11 and the London bombings.

 

[Rik Meleet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12924965/

Read the story.

Yea, we've really fabricated the whole "World Terrorist Jihad thing." Read the article then try to tell me that isn't the same damn thing that we (the US) has been saying we're fighting since 9/11.

It isn't.

The ones that qualify as "terrorists" are individuals, spread out far and hard to locate. Finding them requires subtlety. Armies are not a subtle tool.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I've heard quite a few claims on this forum that Bush and the gang made up the whole terrorist threat for oil and similiar garbage as that.

I'll give you that. Some people do think that the Bush invented the whole thing, including 9/11. I wouldn't give such views much time. But there are also claims that Bush used 9/11 and the rise in popularity thereafter to finish the job is father started in Iraq. If you can point to any viable terrorist threat to the US from Iraq I would look at it. Given that Colin Powell can't find it, I doubt you can.

We haven't said we're just fighting Al-Qaeda, but Terrorism everywhere.

Well, not everywhere just those countries on the wrong side of the fence.

Iraq is just the central front. We have similiar, though on a much smaller scale, little adventures in countries around the world that don't get a lot of publicity.

Such as?

Also, that article clearly showed that the Jihadi's planned on continuing to fight us after 9/11, thus a war was needed. Why should we sit on our hands while our enemies move around us?

Nobody is advocating sitting on your hands. Simply that invading countries isn't the way to combat terrorism

When we first liberated Iraq, perhaps you missed the video of Iraqi citizens pulling down the statue of Saddam. You've also perhaps not spoken with a soldier who was in the Invasion force and found out how the Iraqi's welcomed our troops. For the most part, it was with arms wide open and they welcomed them as liberators.

There are people who welcomed American's as liberators, there are people who we loyal to Saddam gathering weapons cache's at the same time. Nobody claimed that every Iraqi thinks the same.

Sadly, now three years later, the populace has turned against us it seems.

Those people cheering and welcoming the soliders have obviously grown tired of having no water, electricity, security. People thought that the streets would be paved in gold once Saddam had been ousted, now that there not, people are angry.

You're foolish if you think that because of our counter-attack on Afghanistan that suddenly the Jihadi's just woke up and thought, "Damn the infidels! Let's kill them all!"

Perhaps not, but after the number of people with family members killed in our invasions it wouldn't suprise me if many more people are thinking "Damn the infidels! Let's kill them all!" than there was before. That doesn't sound like 'winning' to me.

Though I have strong suspicions that the media has a good hand in portraying the Iraqi's as hating us.

I seriously doubt that.

Either Islamic Extremism is going to have to be beat down so bad it'll never recover, or we're going to have decades of terrorist attacks against innocent people like on 9/11 and the London bombings.

Look at history my friend. You can never "beat down so bad" that they'll recover. Beating down only perpetuates the whole bloody mess we already find ourselves in.

 

[Verbose]

138,000 soldiers in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side wants to blow us to hell.

Come now, it's not as if it's the first time someone wants to do the US, or Europe, harm. You can't claim to be complete innocents abroad with this sort of thing.

The present situation still begs the question why the US has decided a huge military, but local, response (Iraq and Afghanistan) is adequate for the situation?

 

[.Shane.]

This is so ridiculous. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. This has been conclusively proven.

So, yes, 9/11/jihad/insert-slogan-here is why we correctly took out the Taliban. It has nothing to do with Iraq, other than being a made-up excuse.

 

[spankey]

Look at history my friend. You can never "beat down so bad" that they'll recover. Beating down only perpetuates the whole bloody mess we already find ourselves in.

One small point-- the Brits had great success in beating down communism and insurgency in the malaysian pennisula. But, it took forced relocations and other not-so-niceites.

 

[blackheart]

I've heard quite a few claims on this forum that Bush and the gang made up the whole terrorist threat for oil and similiar garbage as that.

And you actually believe that many people believe those claims?

We haven't said we're just fighting Al-Qaeda, but Terrorism everywhere. Iraq is just the central front. We have similiar, though on a much smaller scale, little adventures in countries around the world that don't get a lot of publicity. Also, that article clearly showed that the Jihadi's planned on continuing to fight us after 9/11, thus a war was needed. Why should we sit on our hands while our enemies move around us?

The article also said that they're decentralized so invading one single nation wouldn't do much.

When we first liberated Iraq, perhaps you missed the video of Iraqi citizens pulling down the statue of Saddam. You've also perhaps not spoken with a soldier who was in the Invasion force and found out how the Iraqi's welcomed our troops. For the most part, it was with arms wide open and they welcomed them as liberators. Sadly, now three years later, the populace has turned against us it seems. Though I have strong suspicions that the media has a good hand in portraying the Iraqi's as hating us.

It's the media's fault now? Maybe because it's three years later and there's mass violence and murders happening in Iraq, not to mention lack of security all around. Maybe, just MAYBE that's the reason the Iraqis don't like America now.

No, this is why we fight. They had all this planned out well before 9/11. You're foolish if you think that because of our counter-attack on Afghanistan that suddenly the Jihadi's just woke up and thought, "Damn the infidels! Let's kill them all!"

No, but now even more jihadists are taking up the cause than before.

138,000 soldiers in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side wants to blow us to hell.

I'm sorry but have you been living in a cave for the past few years? Terrorists didn't operate freely in Iraq because it would have destabilized Saddam's brutal regime.

They were brought together to destroy the west. Our military presence in the Middle East was laughable before the Second Iraq war. We had some planes and Marines around Iraq. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp this. These guys want to see us dead, no matter if we give in and pull out or not. They will still continue to try to bathe the West in blood till one side is gone. Either Islamic Extremism is going to have to be beat down so bad it'll never recover, or we're going to have decades of terrorist attacks against innocent people like on 9/11 and the London bombings.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that this isn't a conventional war, so therefore, CONVENTIONAL TACTICS WILL NOT WORK.

 

[CaptainF]

...was a very interesting piece of propaganda filmed by Frank Capra at the behest of the U.S. Government.

 

[VoodooAce]

I've heard quite a few claims on this forum that Bush and the gang made up the whole terrorist threat for oil and similiar garbage as that.



We haven't said we're just fighting Al-Qaeda, but Terrorism everywhere. Iraq is just the central front. We have similiar, though on a much smaller scale, little adventures in countries around the world that don't get a lot of publicity. Also, that article clearly showed that the Jihadi's planned on continuing to fight us after 9/11, thus a war was needed. Why should we sit on our hands while our enemies move around us?

When we first liberated Iraq, perhaps you missed the video of Iraqi citizens pulling down the statue of Saddam. You've also perhaps not spoken with a soldier who was in the Invasion force and found out how the Iraqi's welcomed our troops. For the most part, it was with arms wide open and they welcomed them as liberators. Sadly, now three years later, the populace has turned against us it seems. Though I have strong suspicions that the media has a good hand in portraying the Iraqi's as hating us.



No, this is why we fight. They had all this planned out well before 9/11. You're foolish if you think that because of our counter-attack on Afghanistan that suddenly the Jihadi's just woke up and thought, "Damn the infidels! Let's kill them all!"



Ok, Mr. High ranking know it all Civ General, sir.



138,000 soldiers in camo in the sands of Iraq because the other side wants to blow us to hell.



They were brought together to destroy the west. Our military presence in the Middle East was laughable before the Second Iraq war. We had some planes and Marines around Iraq. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp this. These guys want to see us dead, no matter if we give in and pull out or not. They will still continue to try to bathe the West in blood till one side is gone. Either Islamic Extremism is going to have to be beat down so bad it'll never recover, or we're going to have decades of terrorist attacks against innocent people like on 9/11 and the London bombings.

Man, this forum is going downhill.

First of all, you've probably heard people saying the invasion of Iraq was, to varying degrees depending on the poster, motivated by oil. But I haven't heard anybody say we're fighting 'the war on terror' for oil.

Second, I would say that you must have, remarkably, missed what's happened since the citizens of Iraq tore down Sadam's statue. But you then go on to admit that those citizens have 'turned' against us. This was predictable. Of course, maybe you're one of those that actually believed our leaders when they said we'd be welcomed as liberators.

Lastly, I wish people would realize that you can't beat an enemy like fanatical Islamic terrorists with force. You only make them stronger becaues you make it too easy for them to recruit. The harder we fight, the more of them we martyr, the more we prove their case in their eyes and the stronger we make them.

Its like some Star Trek episode where they're dealing with some energy mass that's draining the ship's power and the more energy they use to fight it, the stronger they make it....and the more harm they do themselves.

 

[Verbose]

Second, I would say that you must have, remarkably, missed what's happened since the citizens of Iraq tore down Sadam's statue.

You mean the footage where Iraqis started tearing it down, but then the US troops got some heavy machinery to do the job?
A scene that at the time had loads of political analysts and diplomats going "Oh dear..." over the symbolism of the situation. Not good.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You mean the footage where Iraqis started tearing it down, but then the US troops got some heavy machinery to do the job?
A scene that at the time had loads of political analysts and diplomats going "Oh dear..." over the symbolism of the situation. Not good.

Along with the American flag being draped around Saddam's head shortly before? Seen thereafter as conquerers not liberators.

 

[Verbose]

Along with the American flag being draped around Saddam's head shortly before? Seen thereafter as conquerers not liberators.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Nice touch, that one...

 

[BasketCase]

Lastly, I wish people would realize that you can't beat an enemy like fanatical Islamic terrorists with force. You only make them stronger becaues you make it too easy for them to recruit. The harder we fight, the more of them we martyr, the more we prove their case in their eyes and the stronger we make them.

The fanatical Islamic terrorists need to realize the same thing.

You can't beat the United States with force. 9/11 proved that. Shortly after the attack, the U.S. military saw a huge surge in sign-ups, and public opinion took a big swing in favor of getting out the

and beating other nations over the head with it.

They make the United States stronger. They make it too easy for the United States to recruit.

Some nations of the Earth have tried the other way. The citizens of Afghanistan didn't fight when the Taliban took over. France got subjected to a single bombing, and they repealed that ban on veils pretty quick. A fair number of people are terrified that the U.S. is turning into a police state--yet I don't see anyone raising guns to prevent it. Beyond a certain point, peace isn't the answer.

Some say change has to come from within. Maybe it does. I personally don't believe that, but the end result--when the citizens are tired of a despot or a religious ruler--is the same. People get fed up and pick up guns (or maybe torches and pitchforks) and start trying to kill people.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The fanatical Islamic terrorists need to realize the same thing.

You can't beat the United States with force. (snip) They make the United States stronger. They make it too easy for the United States to recruit.

True, but the US is in a position of strength. When it uses it's force it looks like a bully. Unfair I know, but when the US invades a nation and people are killed in the process the terrorists point to this and gain support. Perhaps it's time to try another way?

Some nations of the Earth have tried the other way. The citizens of Afghanistan didn't fight when the Taliban took over. (snip) Beyond a certain point, peace isn't the answer.

I think it's unfair to say that the citizens of Afghanistan didn't fight. After years of living in one of the poorest parts of the world whilst fighting the USSR, they suddenly find a small group of men calling themselves the Taliban who forcibly took over the country after two years of violent attempts. During these two years tens of thousands of Afghani civilians were indiscriminately killed by bombing and shelling from rockets and mortars and in the years since, Taliban planes have dropped bombs on Afghani civilians and destroyed entire villages in acts of vengeance . It's easy to ask why someone didn't put up a fight whilst sat safely at home typing on a keyboard.

 

[Yeeek]

France got subjected to a single bombing, and they repealed that ban on veils pretty quick.

Excuse me? You are not up to date, the law that ban headscarf in school is still in application. Its not allowed to wear religious symbols (obvious one) in public laic school. Thats all. No one forced muslim in france to not wear their headscarf in the streets or at home.

France never gave in to terrorists demands. France does have special forces in Afghanistan, 2 of them died last week fyi.

 

[Verbose]

The fanatical Islamic terrorists need to realize the same thing.

You can't beat the United States with force. 9/11 proved that. Shortly after the attack, the U.S. military saw a huge surge in sign-ups, and public opinion took a big swing in favor of getting out the

and beating other nations over the head with it.

They make the United States stronger. They make it too easy for the United States to recruit.

Well, they do.
It's the point of assymetrical warfare. Instill fear in the American public and make the US spend a disproportionate amount of cash on chasing their little outfit with its shoe-string budget.

I think we can assume they are looking at the present US budget deficit with considerable expectation.