DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Some people here seem to think our military can only do one thing at a time. Guess what? We can take care of Iraq, guard the Korean border, patrol Kosovo, protect Afganistan and look for Osama...all at the same time.
The question of being safer now since Iraq is best looked at much loved Clinton and friends. How the Dems are spouting off how the world was more respectful of the U.S. because of Bill "Psychobabble" Clinton policies. Well I hate to burst your linguinni wrapped sand castle, but 9/11 didn't happen because Bush got elected. With Iraq and Afganistan out of the equation, the terrorist no longer have free and open places to operate out of. We are safer because Libya decided the being a terrorist state with nuclear ambitions was maybe not the safest thing to be. Other leaders of countries that were thinking about allowing terrorist to operate in their borders now realise screwing around with America while Bush is in power may not be good for long term retirement plans.
Perhaps one should ask themselves how much safer we will be if some Clinton clone wanker like Kerry gets back in office. Remember it was Kerry that voted to cut funds to the CIA and it was Gorlich that threw the wall up between the FBI and the CIA. So go ahead and vote that crowd back in. I'm sure for awhile you'll feel safe.

I know that. But IMO its stretching our forces thin in the wrong places. How many guys are ACTIVELY searching for osama right now? How many are busy policing Iraq?

You cannot say that the US government is exerting as much force as it could in the search for Al Qaida and Osama while in Iraq.

How many guys are ACTIVELY searching for osama right now? How many are busy policing Iraq?

Last figure I heard was in an ABC report, and it rang to the tune of 135,000 troops in Iraq, and 15,000 still in Afgahnistan.

I brought the point of logistics up in the previous thread about Iran, and Woodchip seemed to gleen right past it. Yes, we have a large army, and yes, it can multitask, but it's got a full platter right now. Iraq happens to be the biggest task for the armed forces at the moment, so that's what has to get wrapped up before another full-scale war is possible. That or a draft would have to be reinstated, which would be a military and PR nightmare.

Like I said, I'd love to see Syria and/or Iran get the hearty kick in the balls that they deserve, but unless well-trained and well-equipped soldiers are growing on trees all of a sudden, the US can't deliver that kick. Bet you wish Europe wasn't pissed off with us now, otherwise the United States could offer up hard evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons program and terrorist ties to Europe and get them to carry a great deal of the burden.

The question of being safer now since Iraq is best looked at much loved Clinton and friends. How the Dems are spouting off how the world was more respectful of the U.S. because of Bill "[Woody's a Troll]" Clinton policies.

Do I feel safer given the Bush policy on Iraq than given the Clinton policy on Iraq? No, not in the slightest. When Clinton acted on faulty WMD intelligence from questionable sources without adequate confirmation, the US Navy sent a cruise missile into (what amounted to be) an Asprin factory. When Bush acted on faulty WMD intelligence from questionable sources without adequate confirmation, the rebuilding effort in Afgahnistan got left by the wayside, and the greater majority of the US Army got pulled into a conflict that denied it the ability to strike against the real threats in the region (i.e. Iran, Syria, and possibly even Saudi Arabia). Now instead of worrying about an imaginary Iraqi nuke being built, I worry about a North Korean nuke hitting the west coast, and an Iranian leader deciding to start a full-scale nuclear war with Israel. The reason I worry? Because the best response we can muster with the Army and Marine Corps tied down in Iraq is an air war, and no regime has been overthrown with air power alone.

It is generally thought that bin Laden might be in the wilderness frontier of Pakistan. Pakistan has stipulated that no US forces can violate its border. In other words, it wouldn't matter if we had 20 or 20,000 or even 2 million service personnel straddling the Afgan/Pak border because not a single one can cross it. So saying we don't have enough troops chasing bin Laden is disingenuous. There's nothing to chase. The US troops are acting as a wall preventing Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan and their current troop level is sufficient for that functon. Meanwhile the Pakistani forces are working a campaign of capture and attrition on their side. Either way, bin Laden's crew is pretty much isolated. The far more dangerous terrorist group at the moment is Zarqawi's and he and his crew are in Iraq, where the bulk of US combat forces currently operate.

SSC BlueFlames wrote:Bet you wish Europe wasn't pissed off with us now, otherwise the United States could offer up hard evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons program and terrorist ties to Europe and get them to carry a great deal of the burden.

Do you really think they'd act on it? I don't.

I don't remember Zarqawi flying planes into a building...do you? He became a threat when we left Afghanistan.

and it bothers me bash that you are willing to accept Pakistan's wish for no troops when we could have the man that killed 3000 people. If the US actually cared about him, don't you think Bush (or Cheney) would say F YOU to Pakistan and go get him. Would anybody here be bothered by getting Bin Laden? C'mon face it, like I said to woodchip, your boy messed up now face it like a man. BTW, I still think you look like Jeff Beck.

Pakistan is probably our most important ally in the fight against terrorism and you think we should just bust down the door and invade a friend? Whoa, you're one crazy warmonger.

"I don't remember Zarqawi flying planes into a building...do you?" Z

No and Osam didn't either.

Z, don't confuse policies with intentions.

SSC BlueFlames wrote:When Bush acted on faulty WMD intelligence from questionable sources without adequate confirmation, the rebuilding effort in Afgahnistan got left by the wayside, and the greater majority of the US Army got pulled into a conflict that denied it the ability to strike against the real threats in the region (i.e. Iran, Syria, and possibly even Saudi Arabia). Now instead of worrying about an imaginary Iraqi nuke being built, I worry about a North Korean nuke hitting the west coast, and an Iranian leader deciding to start a full-scale nuclear war with Israel.

I don't know, I think Iraq would still be our biggest threat right now, if Bush hadn't done anything. Regardless of their weapons, Iraq seemed to be the leader in defying & failing to cooperate with the U.S. and the U.N.- I think if Iran or Syria had done anything, they would have followed Iraq, not initiated it themselves. Also, regardless of WMD, they where still violating the treaty that ended the gulf war by griefing the weapons inspectors. That alone didn't merit a war, but it certainly merited some sort of action.

Do you really think they'd act on it?

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, I think that given adequate proof of a threat and a different diplomatic attitude (see below), Europe would act.

In case you hadn't noticed, telling the UN and EU that we don't need them and are perfectly willing to act without them does not elicit much support. European politicians tend to be a snobby bunch and don't like having their nations spoken of like an optional feature on a car. The Bush Jr. administration was preaching unillateralism even before the invasion of Iraq, and I think that's what cost us a lot of potential support there. It was like turning to your buddy and asking for his help moving a 500 lbs. piano, while stipulating at the same time that you can do it yourself. I don't care if you two are American, European, or other, that 'buddy' of yours is probably going to be perfectly happy to let you move that piano by yourself, and he/she will find every excuse to get out of helping.

You can't be condescending to diplomats when you're asking for them to put their nationals into a war with you. It was a stupid diplomatic error to make and one that can certainly not be repeated if the US ends up deciding to invade Iran before adequate forces can be freed up from Iraq.