|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 81
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 81 |
The events in Iraq are just steps in the Ladder toward the END of the WORLD in 2012. GET OVER IT. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
How would they get here? When will they get the chance? That "taking the fight to the terrorists" nonsense is getting old. That is not a reason for being in Iraq.
All it would take is a tiny fraction of the money we are spending in Iraq to tighten our borders and beef-up airport security so that no terrorist would have a chance of getting here.
The same ways they did before. Student visas, slipping through border crossings (from Canada and Mexico...law enforcement on the southern border are worried that after a few months of immersion in Mexico and some language training, Arab terrorists could be almost indistinguishable from Mexicans), other legitimate travel. What you don't seem to understand about the war on terror is that it's not all just bullets and bombs. The biggest victories are in the capture of papers, computers, lists, and plans...it's not just about who we kill or capture, it's about how much we can learn about their methods, their rosters, and their plans. Al Qaeda is pretty compartmentalized, sure, but the more intel we gather, the more likely it is that we can roll up cells here and abroad. To get that kind of intel, you have to go to the source, which is why we went to Afghanistan, it's why we went to Iraq (yeah, I said it, and the New York Times actually slipped up after Zarquai got popped and printed that the US had intel on him being in Iraq before the invasion ever happened), and it's why I have a feeling that we'll be heading back to Somalia pretty soon, because AQ has apparently moved there and taken over Mogadishu.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
I know I'm short-sighted and ignorant of reality but you didn't address my gripe with the statement by EternalOne. He stated that if we were not in Iraq fighting terrorists, then the terrorists would try to come here. My question was, how would they get here? When would they get the chance? What could we be doing that would prevent them from getting here?
The fact remains that Al Zarqawi was a threat long before the Iraq war -- he was growing in strength and power in the region, we just forced him to the surface with the invasion, most likely before he wanted to step into the limelight once again. (Yes, again.)
Our country, by nature, has a very open system of travel -- this comes with our level of freedom. Ever hear of Ramzi Yousef? He was one of the 93 WTC bombers, in the country legally after he was granted asylum in the US.
Right now they are very limited, with them being pre-occupied with us on two fronts. Without us there they would have much greater freedom of movement in the Middle East, and that would make operational planning all that much easier. Bounce to a few free-travel countries and then onto the US. Right now they are too worried about the "free pickings" of US Soldiers in Iraq, coupled with the fact that we keep killing their leaders and gathering operational intelligence and you have us holding them back on all fronts.
E1
Last edited by EternalOne; 06/22/06 02:56 PM.
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Originally posted by spgoode:
I know I'm short-sighted and ignorant of reality but you didn't address my gripe with the statement by EternalOne. He stated that if we were not in Iraq fighting terrorists, then the terrorists would try to come here. My question was, how would they get here? When would they get the chance? What could we be doing that would prevent them from getting here?
The fact remains that Al Zarqawi was a threat long before the Iraq war -- he was growing in strength and power in the region, we just forced him to the surface with the invasion, most likely before he wanted to step into the limelight once again. (Yes, again.)
Our country, by nature, has a very open system of travel -- this comes with our level of freedom. Ever hear of Ramzi Yousef? He was one of the 93 WTC bombers, in the country legally after he was granted asylum in the US.
Right now they are very limited, with them being pre-occupied with us on two fronts. Without us there they would have much greater freedom of movement in the Middle East, and that would make operational planning all that much easier. Bounce to a few free-travel countries and then onto the US. Right now they are too worried about the "free pickings" of US Soldiers in Iraq, coupled with the fact that we keep killing their leaders and gathering operational intelligence and you have us holding them back on all fronts.
E1
Again, with procedural changes and tightened border security we could be reasonably sure that nothing resembling September 11th would happen again. All this could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost we are spending in Iraq.
"Taking the fight to the terrorists" is nonsense and that is my point.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
While I believe we do need tighter border security, I do not think you can stop a determined terrorist, period. The nature of their "business" is that they are underground most of the time, until they do the deed. There is no way to stop 100% of the people, 100% of the time.
That's the same for cargo containers coming into the US. There are FAR too many containers, on a super-tight schedule, to inspect every single one -- its just not possible.
If you slow down things at the border then other things suffer downstream -- its a snowball effect. You slow down the border crossing, you end up slowing down transfer of goods, which in turns raises costs of shipping, which in turn is passed onto the consumer. (Ie: us.)
Slippery slope there...
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Again, with procedural changes and tightened border security we could be reasonably sure that nothing resembling September 11th would happen again. All this could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost we are spending in Iraq.
"Taking the fight to the terrorists" is nonsense and that is my point.
This is just foolish. Let Radical Islam dominate in these countries, as it surely will without outside interference, and nowhere will be safe from its influence. These people will set up the most extreme form of totalitarianism the world has ever seen. Brutal repression aided by technologies developed in the free world. An entire society driven by the desires and beliefs of a small group of radicals. People who hold to a value structure that you and I will find near incomprehensible (as I do right now).
Not some backward ass country like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Incredible oil wealth with the ability to buy anything their own repressed society cannot produce. Anything. Iraq and Iran becoming the center of a â??new world orderâ? spread across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
One value structure, one set of beliefs and goals, a common hatred of the west centered on the United States. Actions unfettered by any kind of morality as we understand it. We are less than animals to these people.
Without the United States and our allies stopping Radical Islam now, that is where we end up.
What about your â??procedural changes and tightened border security?" Look beyond your own myopic, ignorant, near-term liberal foolishness and consider the kind of world you want your children to live in. Hell on earth? Not for me.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Originally posted by spgoode:
I know I'm short-sighted and ignorant of reality but you didn't address my gripe with the statement by EternalOne. He stated that if we were not in Iraq fighting terrorists, then the terrorists would try to come here. My question was, how would they get here? When would they get the chance? What could we be doing that would prevent them from getting here?
The fact remains that Al Zarqawi was a threat long before the Iraq war -- he was growing in strength and power in the region, we just forced him to the surface with the invasion, most likely before he wanted to step into the limelight once again. (Yes, again.)
Our country, by nature, has a very open system of travel -- this comes with our level of freedom. Ever hear of Ramzi Yousef? He was one of the 93 WTC bombers, in the country legally after he was granted asylum in the US.
Right now they are very limited, with them being pre-occupied with us on two fronts. Without us there they would have much greater freedom of movement in the Middle East, and that would make operational planning all that much easier. Bounce to a few free-travel countries and then onto the US. Right now they are too worried about the "free pickings" of US Soldiers in Iraq, coupled with the fact that we keep killing their leaders and gathering operational intelligence and you have us holding them back on all fronts.
E1
Again, with procedural changes and tightened border security we could be reasonably sure that nothing resembling September 11th would happen again. All this could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost we are spending in Iraq.
"Taking the fight to the terrorists" is nonsense and that is my point.
Do you really believe that? You have Ivy League colleges fighting over these types of people to attend their schools! Harvard, Yale, and Standford, two out of those three (I can't remember the specific two) FOUGHT over getting the spokesman for the Taliban to attend their school. And guess what? He's attending their school right now, on a student visa, ON A SCHOLARSHIP! These guys aren't stupid. They know how to work the system. Only by rendering their brainhousing groups unserviceable can we curtail them as a threat. There will be another attack on our soil. And in my opinion, it will be on a larger scale than 9/11. You can have all the security in the world at your front door, but these guys wait, learn, and adapt to it. Iraq and their tactics is a perfect example of such.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Without the United States and our allies stopping Radical Islam now, that is where we end up.
Radical Islam was not in Iraq under Hussein's rule. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan among others is where schoolchildren are taught hatred for Western values and little else besides the Quran. Iraq was not in this categorie.
Sadam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but belonged to the much less radical Sunni sect of Islam. Al Qaeda entered Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war and inhabited portions of the country not controlled by Hussein.
I understand that people like you will do anything to link Iraq to 9/11 and global terrrorism. Too bad it doesn't fit.
We should have finished the job in Afganistan before rushing into Iraq.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
I understand that people like you will do anything to link Iraq to 9/11 and global terrrorism. Too bad it doesn't fit.
We should have finished the job in Afganistan before rushing into Iraq.
Well, the job in Afghanistan needs to be finished, I agree. But you're still wrong about Iraq and its links to terrorism.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Radical Islam was not in Iraq under Hussein's rule.
Originally posted by spgoode:
Al Qaeda entered Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war and inhabited portions of the country not controlled by Hussein.
Does anyone else find this as funny as I do? :P
And how many times have you been in Iraq? Because I personally have been in that country twice for extended periods, and I can tell you that radial Islam WAS a part of that country in many aspects, whether you want to believe it or not. *cough* Al Sadr *cough* -- Just to name one. My how easy people forget the facts when they don't agree with their beliefs.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
