Footwedge wrote:
Yup and yup and yup.

didnt know Al-Qaeda was a country. i mean, seems most middle east countries were getting rich off of us.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: Were we in their countries when they bombed the USS Kohl?? How about the Baracks?? What about the 1st attempt on the Trade Centers.....were we in their countries then??

Yup and yup and yup.

The Cole? As in Yemen? Not for the Cole, but we are helping Yemen in containing their radical elements in their country now.

The barracks? As in Lebanon in 82 or Khobar is 95? We are in neither country now.

1st attempt in the WTC, as far as I know we captured the guys responsible, save OBL, and are in Afghanistan now.

why were we in those countries though? did we just wake up one day and say "lets go fuck with some arabs, invade their land, rape their women and orphan their children?"

For 300 and Glory Days. Obviously your understanding of American involvement in the middle east is not your history strengths.

Bin Ladin doesn't blow up people for the Q'uran. They blow people up because of people running their countries.

From Cato...IN 1991.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

Footwedge wrote: For 300 and Glory Days. Obviously your understanding of American involvement in the middle east is not your history strengths.

Bin Ladin doesn't blow up people for the Q'uran. They blow people up because of people running their countries.

From Cato...IN 1991.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

You also know OLB listed the Saudi government too, even though the U.S. was not involved in that. They also want to take down the Egyptian and Lebanese governments as well.

Again, what makes you think they would suddenly give up the fight against the U.S.?

Why would they not continue their fight, just like they did after we left Somalia?
Yes, we have been in the region for a while, but for widely different reasons than your "military industrial complex" reason.
I can point out all the reasons we were involved in each country for actually, largely valid reasons. (Except for Iraq 03 of course)

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: For 300 and Glory Days. Obviously your understanding of American involvement in the middle east is not your history strengths.

Bin Ladin doesn't blow up people for the Q'uran. They blow people up because of people running their countries.

From Cato...IN 1991.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019

You also know OLB listed the Saudi government too, even though the U.S. was not involved in that. They also want to take down the Egyptian and Lebanese governments as well.

Again, what makes you think they would suddenly give up the fight against the U.S.?

Why would they not continue their fight, just like they did after we left Somalia?
Yes, we have been in the region for a while, but for widely different reasons than your "military industrial complex" reason.
I can point out all the reasons we were involved in each country for actually, largely valid reasons. (Except for Iraq 03 of course)

All you have to do is ask yourself this very simple question. Why does bin Ladin want to take down the Egyption government.....and to a lesser extent...the Lebanese government? By citing these 2 countries, you have answered your own question.

Bin Ladin's Al Quada has been very public in stating his utter abhorrence with Middle Eastern countries coddling to the west and their running their countries as de facto puppets.

Ptowns...if anybody should know the absolute lessons of blowback...a term made famous by out own CIA...it should be you.

Al Quada is a teeny, weeny little threat to the United States today. However the threat is commeasurate with the involvement that we have in the middle east. The more we infest the Muddle East, the higher the threat.

I repeat...one more time...the amount of terrorist attacks and or attempted attacks have increased post Middle East permanent occupation versus prior to permanent occupation. This is not my opinion, but the official numbers released by our own intelligence agencies.

It was before your time....but not mine. The Iranians broke international law by taking American hostages for 444 days. The reason? The US wanted to grant amnesty for the Shah (and provide cancer treatments for him in the states)...who was an American puppeteer, that siphoned off billions of dollars from Iran to the British and American oil companies....while the people en masse lived in dirt poor poverty.

Egypt, Saudi and Lebanon are de facto puppets?

Am I missing something? Nasser took power in Egypt, and then Murbarck from him. Not until 1977 did the West start to align with them, and that in support of Middle East peace, Camp David.

Saudi went to the house of Saud in the early 20th century, without U.S. help. The U.S. has helped the Saudi region, but the House of Saud is not a puppet for the U.S., hardly.

Lebanon makes no sense either as it was a huge revolution against the Syrian influence.

I'm not sure of the blowback you are referring to. Blowback is more Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

OBL is not a fan of Egypt due to the long repression of the Muslim Brotherhood.
For the Saudis, for yes, close ties to the U.S., but also eliminating his citizenship.
For Lebanon, for their close ties to the West, as a result from the election that occurred in 2005 and the March/ Cedar revolution.


You cite Iran, ok, yes, but we got 20 years and a ton of Soviet missiles information, so I don't consider that a bad deal. The guy was an awful leader and did repress his people. But, in the Cold War, we needed shady allies to maintain deterrence.

What time period is "post Middle East occupation"? 1967, 1948?
I'd say that there are more reasons than just American forces in the region. I'd say, it was authoritative regimes, the fall of the Ottoman empire, the spread of radical Islam in the 60s, the writings of Seyyid Qutb, the proliferation of IRA techniques, and the influence of the experience gained in Algeria.

Bin Ladin has been very "bullet pointed" in why he has terrorized the west. What is realy sad, he has had to spend vitually nothing in recruiting radical sympathizers. All the while the US spends hundreds of billions of dollars....and solves absolutely nothing.

The US doesn't have the same influence on Lebanon and Egypt as it does Saudi Arabia. But to suggest that the US doesn't hold the gauntlet over their heads is being naive.

But we will stay the course.....can't "lose a war" now can we? There are still plenty of military dudes that remain pissed off at how Vietnam ended.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: The war isn't worth it. America is no more safe with the current situation in Afghanistan than we were with the Taliban in control. We won't be more safe until we get the hell out of their countries.

You want less terrorism, give them no means to recruit. Pretty hard to convince people that we are the infidels invading their home/holy lands if we aren't there.

So, people think that is we leave, the Taliban and al Qaeda will just give up their arms against the U.S.? What are you basing this on? Do you know that they will in fact leave us alone if we withdraw? Have you heard that they will give up the fight against the U.S. if we withdraw?

Do people also think that the Taliban will not stop until the Afghan government is gone? Or that the Pakistani Talibans will stop?

I think those views are a little naive. It is better to try and stop them in military fights and build up the humanitarian side than lay back and go on faith that al Qaeda won't try attack us again.

Drones and intelligence are not a strategy, just a tactic. The 90s showed us that we need forces on the ground to effectively limit and stop the Taliban. Drones, while awesome, are only part of the arsenal. We need to maintain boots on the ground.

It is a long, hard war, that will take many years to accomplish. I've been saying this for years. COIN takes time, many years, and there will be setbacks.

Finally, if we want less terrorists, we kill the top level guys, and provide humanitarian and basic needs to the people on the ground. Give them an option, the U.S. provided option or the Taliban. If the U.S. can provide a better deal, then recruitment goes down. The problem is, that takes time.

Do you know for a fact that staying in Afghanistan and Iraq will work?

Nope.

Have the two wars claimed far more US lives than terrorist attacks? Yes.

far more US civilians lives were lost in terrorist attacks before we started fighting wars.

Protip: Most of the people in the military were probably civilians before we started the whole spreadin' democracy and gittin' Osama operation.

Glory Days wrote: they'll just hide in the caves until we are done bombing. you cant win a war with airpower alone. they arent stupid, training camps from pre 9-11 dont exist anymore, they know how to blend in and be unseen from the air.

dwccrew wrote: Anyone who believes we are achieving anything further in Afghanistan has been brainwashed by the propoganda of the military industrial complex/war machine.

anyone who believes we are not achieving anything in afghanistan has been brainwashed by the anti war propaganda.

So GENERAL McChrystal is brainwashed by the anti-war propoganda machine? Laughable!

Glory Days wrote: one operation did not have the success it hoped, the war is not lost.

The war is not lost, but it is not winnable. It is an endless war.

Mr. 300 wrote: Were we in their countries when we were attacked on 9/11???

Mr. 300 wrote: Were we in their countries when they bombed the USS Kohl?? How about the Baracks?? What about the 1st attempt on the Trade Centers.....were we in their countries then??

Yes, we were. The Cole was in Yemen. The Kobar towers were in Saudi Arabia. The baracks were in Lebanon. I am in no way justifying these attacks, just answering your question.

When they attacked the WTC (both times) we did have troops in the Mid East. AQ recruits people from countries all over the Mid East. It's pretty easy to convince people from a country that the US has military bases in that the US is an occupying force (whether it is true or untrue).

And if you don't think we were running bombing missions since the first war in Iraq up until 9/11, you are mistaken. Look up Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch. My unit was stationed in Turkey (who no longer allows us to use their bases) and Kuwait providing support in these missions.

Putting our military and troops in another country is not a very good way to stregthen relations. It is a good way to piss the locals off and an easy recruiting tool for terrorist groups such as AQ.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: Were we in their countries when they bombed the USS Kohl?? How about the Baracks?? What about the 1st attempt on the Trade Centers.....were we in their countries then??

Yup and yup and yup.

The Cole? As in Yemen? Not for the Cole, but we are helping Yemen in containing their radical elements in their country now.

The barracks? As in Lebanon in 82 or Khobar is 95? We are in neither country now.

1st attempt in the WTC, as far as I know we captured the guys responsible, save OBL, and are in Afghanistan now.

I think what was meant by Footwedge is that we were in the Mid East. We were in countries in which AQ recruited members. Therefore, we were in their "territory" so to speak.

And if people really don't believe we aren't there to protect our oil interests, they are sadly mistaken. Oil is the most vital commodity to our economy.

Notice how once we left Lebanon, we didn't have many problems with them. Who would of thought?

I think something that a lot of people don't realize is this, 9/11 happened because we were caught with our pants down. US Customs and the CIA broke down. Now that we are more on guard (although our Homeland Security and Customs are still a joke) we have prevented terrorist attacks. Putting our troops in harms way in the Mid East is not preventing terrorist attacks, it is the fact that our country is more on guard and more aware than we were pre-9/11.

I'd feel safer if we brought all of our troops home from the Mid East. It would give AQ less recruiting tools and our troops would be here to secure and keep our country safe.

Do people still believe that the reason AQ and those of their ilk hate us is because of our western ways? IF you do, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. They hate us because we are Imperialists pushing our way of life on them and setting up shop in their country.

I am of middle eastern descent and have met many people from the mid east (many that have recently moved here as well). Most, if not all, agree that the reason we are dislike so much is our meddling in their affairs. I say this as born and raised, worn the uniform and fought for our country, loyal American. I love this country. I love it enough to admit our government's flawed beliefs that putting our troops in the mid east and continuing fighting an endless war is a costly mistake.

^^^^^ +1

It should have gone something like this.

President of the USA:

The USA has clear evidence that Usama Bin Laden and his bandits, Al Queda are responsible for the attacks of 9/11. We have requested on numerous occasions that the government of Afghanistan, ruled by the Taliban, turn those responsible for this unprecedented attack on our nation over to US authorities. They have refused our demands. I therefore as POTUS, ask you the congress of the USA to declare that a state of war now exists between the USA and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. Our objective in this war will be to seek Usama Bin Laden and his organization where they may be found and bring them to justice. By capture or death on the field of battle. Because of the Taliban regimes alliance with Al Queda we will also force the unconditional surrender of their regime to our forces. We will do our best to assure that a just government is left for the people of Afghanistan. Once our immediate objectives are achieved our stay will not be indefinite.

We achieved the immediate objectives years ago.

Unconfirmed reports state that the leaders of the Taliban told the US that they were willing to capture bin Ladin and turn him over to the US back on 9-12-01.

I can't substantiate this at all...so there is no debate. But given the nature of the crime and the anger of the American people, it would not surprise me that

A. This might have indeed happened...the Taliban knew they were in deep do-do at this point and
B. If this happened, the US would not have just settled for bin Ladin's head.

dwccrew wrote: I am of middle eastern descent and have met many people from the mid east (many that have recently moved here as well). Most, if not all, agree that the reason we are disliked so much is our meddling in their affairs.

This is something that irritates the hell out of the extreme factions of the religious right. The Hagees, Dobsons, Warrens, Robertsons and the Falwells of the world. It's almost like they want a religious war to see who's God is better.

Usama himself has been very claer as to why he wants to kill Americans. He wants to kill Americans for their one sided allegiance to Israel and the presence of our military all over the Middle East.

People like Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and Fox News are in love with the religious war concept as well.

I just wonder how many people on this blog site would actually be passive if a foreign country with armed forces patrolled our streets and told us how to run our government.

I know how I would react.

dwccrew wrote: Do people still believe that the reason AQ and those of their ilk hate us is because of our western ways? IF you do, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. They hate us because we are Imperialists pushing our way of life on them and setting up shop in their country.

"pushing our way of life on them" is the same thing as "our western ways. and imperialists? what colonies do we have? what countries do we run? you may like to think we pull a lot of strings around the world, but dont be so naive. having a military base in another country doesnt make us imperialist.

Footwedge wrote: I just wonder how many people on this blog site would actually be passive if a foreign country with armed forces patrolled our streets and told us how to run our government.

I know how I would react.

how many countries in the world do we do that with? 2? maybe 1.5?

Glory Days wrote:

dwccrew wrote: Do people still believe that the reason AQ and those of their ilk hate us is because of our western ways? IF you do, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. They hate us because we are Imperialists pushing our way of life on them and setting up shop in their country.

"pushing our way of life on them" is the same thing as "our western ways. and imperialists? what colonies do we have? what countries do we run? you may like to think we pull a lot of strings around the world, but dont be so naive. having a military base in another country doesnt make us imperialist.

What colonies do we have? We have many territories including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. AS for the topic at hand; What countries do we run? Iraq (although not as much now) and Afghanistan we have huge pull in those countries. You truly don't think we have pull and are not pulling strings within these countries? Who's being naive now?

You are correct, having a military base in another country does not make us an imperialist, it makes us an occupying force. What makes us imperialist is when we go into a country and set up a government that we want to mirror ours. This is not the job of the military. The military has done its job. Go in and remove our enemy.

Why can't people look at Vietnam as a lesson? We pulled out of Vietnam and the world did not fall to communism. If we pull out of the mid east, the world will not fall to terrorists; no matter how much the military industrial complex/war machine wants us to believe it.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I just wonder how many people on this blog site would actually be passive if a foreign country with armed forces patrolled our streets and told us how to run our government.

I know how I would react.

how many countries in the world do we do that with? 2? maybe 1.5?

We shouldn't do it in any country. It is not our job to nation build.

But we have troops actively involved in Afghanistan, South Korea and Iraq (the latter 2 in lesser roles than the former). Our military troops are not meant to be a policing force.

My question to those that still support the wars in the mid east is this, what is the plan? What is the timeline? When will it be time to end military involvement in the mid east? Do you really believe that the troops being in the mid east is preventing attacks here in the US? Clearly it is not, attacks are still being attempted, we are just better prepared than before 9/11. HAving troops in the mid east is doing nothing to prevent attacks here. What is preventing attacks here is a more alert defense system within the US.

I can guarantee this, as long as we have troops on a large scale in the mid east, we will continue to have terrorists attempt to attack the US.

Another question is this: why after terrorists attacked in Spain and in England have those 2 countries not engaged in war with any other country? Note, those countries have not had any more subsequent terrorist attacks, than the US has, since each countries initial attack.

dwccrew wrote: My question to those that still support the wars in the mid east is this, what is the plan? What is the timeline? When will it be time to end military involvement in the mid east? Do you really believe that the troops being in the mid east is preventing attacks here in the US? Clearly it is not, attacks are still being attempted, we are just better prepared than before 9/11. HAving troops in the mid east is doing nothing to prevent attacks here. What is preventing attacks here is a more alert defense system within the US.

I can guarantee this, as long as we have troops on a large scale in the mid east, we will continue to have terrorists attempt to attack the US.

Another question is this: why after terrorists attacked in Spain and in England have those 2 countries not engaged in war with any other country? Note, those countries have not had any more subsequent terrorist attacks, than the US has, since each countries initial attack.

look who is conducting those attacks. its like the minor league of al qaeda or isnt even related to al qaeda. so yes, we are preventing attacks. aslong as we are keeping the organizations that can really cause damage to us from attacking us, we are doing our job over there.

what about all the other countries in the world that arent supporting us in Iraq or Afghanistan yet still get bombed? Indonesia, India, Russia, Morocco, Tunisia.

what about Canada, Australia, Poland, and South Korea? why havent they been attacked? they are supporting us in the middle east.

Al Qaeda isn't some super organized system. We've wrecked most of their shit.

Canada, Australia, etc weren't in their homelands to begin with. Why would they get attacked?

Glory Days wrote:

dwccrew wrote: My question to those that still support the wars in the mid east is this, what is the plan? What is the timeline? When will it be time to end military involvement in the mid east? Do you really believe that the troops being in the mid east is preventing attacks here in the US? Clearly it is not, attacks are still being attempted, we are just better prepared than before 9/11. HAving troops in the mid east is doing nothing to prevent attacks here. What is preventing attacks here is a more alert defense system within the US.

I can guarantee this, as long as we have troops on a large scale in the mid east, we will continue to have terrorists attempt to attack the US.

Another question is this: why after terrorists attacked in Spain and in England have those 2 countries not engaged in war with any other country? Note, those countries have not had any more subsequent terrorist attacks, than the US has, since each countries initial attack.

look who is conducting those attacks. its like the minor league of al qaeda or isnt even related to al qaeda. so yes, we are preventing attacks. aslong as we are keeping the organizations that can really cause damage to us from attacking us, we are doing our job over there.

what about all the other countries in the world that arent supporting us in Iraq or Afghanistan yet still get bombed? Indonesia, India, Russia, Morocco, Tunisia.

what about Canada, Australia, Poland, and South Korea? why havent they been attacked? they are supporting us in the middle east.

Why the eff would they even consider attacking South Korea and Canada?

BCSbunk wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It is time to leave (except for our intelligence, spies, etc.) The troops could better serve our country on the US southen border.

I agree with the leave part.

The US is too stupid along with the majority of its population.

Wait to hear how Afghanistan with its massive technology is going threaten the USA and we must crush them.... it is coming....

The Russians at least figured it out.... the USA far too stupid to get it.

Can't wait to post here when we eventually pull out and all is the same in Afghanistan except the USA wasted TRILLIONS of dollars..

Well some corporations and politicians got very wealthy LMAO.

False.

At least if you are going to state which "side" you are on, get the facts straight.

As of right now, the Afghan war has cost about $272 billion. Or just over 1/4 of a trillion. It has cost no where near "TRILLIONS" as you stated.

Matter of fact, even if you had the cost of the Afghan war with the Iraq war (~$723 billion) you don't even reach one single "TRILLION" let alone "TRILLIONS".

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It is time to leave (except for our intelligence, spies, etc.) The troops could better serve our country on the US southen border.

I agree with the leave part.

The US is too stupid along with the majority of its population.

Wait to hear how Afghanistan with its massive technology is going threaten the USA and we must crush them.... it is coming....

The Russians at least figured it out.... the USA far too stupid to get it.

Can't wait to post here when we eventually pull out and all is the same in Afghanistan except the USA wasted TRILLIONS of dollars..

Well some corporations and politicians got very wealthy LMAO.

False.

At least if you are going to state which "side" you are on, get the facts straight.

As of right now, the Afghan war has cost about $272 billion. Or just over 1/4 of a trillion. It has cost no where near "TRILLIONS" as you stated.

Matter of fact, even if you had the cost of the Afghan war with the Iraq war (~$723 billion) you don't even reach one single "TRILLION" let alone "TRILLIONS".

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Jmog....you are not including the earmarked future costs...costs that are in economic terms called "sunk costs".

Ask yourself this...

What is the cost to the taxpayers that are on the hook for close to 90,000 returning war survivors that either are maimed for life or who are being treated for PTSD?

These "costs" haven't been entered onto the books as of yet...but they are future accrued costs.

And secondly....since these wars are perpetual, you need to allocate the 75 billion or so in order to continue the funding. (Deferred taxes to the next generation.....to deal with).

You know, it's interesting that there are so many people in America that bitch and moan about fiscal irresponsibilities in the White House and the Congress. Yet the reality is....nobody has actually passed around the hat for people to actually pony up for these wars.

Keep in mind....the entire defense budget when all departments are factored in, is about 1 trill per annum.