rhino 0 #1 January 10, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/ We shouldn't even discuss it. Just do it... We should have done this a year ago... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 January 10, 2005 Quoteeven across the border into Syria Those are the sort of actions which de-stabilize the entire region and bring in other nations against the coalition. Things are very badly stretched at the moment - how bad would things be if Iran and Syria both invaded because they were pissed about repeated cross boarder raids? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #3 January 10, 2005 QuoteThose are the sort of actions which de-stabilize the entire region That has already happened. It has never been stable. You can't fight people that don't have honor with "honorable" tactics. These people need to be hunted down and killed. They deserve no less.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #4 January 10, 2005 Yeah - that's attacking the insurgents - that's fine. The problem is the article discusses (amongst other more laudable ideas) attacking insurgents inside the sovereign territory of another nation. The US would probably be pretty pissed off if the Iranian or Syrian military drove through Florida shooting at people - even if those people were bad. Conducting counter insurgency operations cross border into countries like Syria and Iran is a realllly good way to escalate the entire conflict and drag in two of the more powerful militaries in the world. Sure they're not a great match for Western troops - but they enough of a match for heavily outnumbered, bogged down and overstretched troops to cause thousands more casualties. In summary: counter insurgency = good cross boarder counter insurgency in the middle east = a really bad idea Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #5 January 10, 2005 . . . and once again we will find ourselves supporting terrorism. You think we'd learn our lesson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #6 January 10, 2005 I'd like to hear what Bush thinks God would have to say about this idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #7 January 10, 2005 QuoteI'd like to hear what Bush thinks God would have to say about this idea. Wow, replace Bush with "Shrub" and you'd have the most original posting of the year. Nice contribution. So let me get this straight.... Counter Insurgency Ops = good Counter Insurgency Ops in Iran or Syria = bad Syrian and Iranian Supported Terrorists Crossing into Iraq = Acceptable So it's okay that Syria and Iran host and support the terror in Iraq, but not okay if we go and prevent them from doing exactly what you don't want us to do? Come on. Sometimes I think you guys are still so hung up on the fact that you don't think we should be there at all that you can't think clearly about what we should do since we're already there. Like Rhino said, this shouldn't even be discussed in the open. It should have already been going on.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #8 January 10, 2005 Quotehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/ We shouldn't even discuss it. Just do it... We should have done this a year ago... Rhino Being from that country, El Sal, and having family member killed by both sides, also talking to fam member who lived there and still are there this is not an solution. The country is still a shit hole where banditry, kidnappings, torture and corruption are prevalant. We have a coffee plantation down there and can only travel to it during the day mainly because of banditry. Once my mom and relatives were held up at gun point coming back from our farm. Its gotten to the point where we are about to say f-it all sell it and not invest more money in that country. We use to have a coffee and sugar refinery, but during the land reform, mainly led by the USA, it was taken away and given to a co-op. Now that refinery has to have annual subsides to keep it a float. Most of that money comes from our tax dollars. Last time I was there we drove by it, it was a shame since it was pretty much falling apart. My uncle was going to sign a multi-million dollar deal with a major mexican corp, the corp pulled the plug when they too almost got held up. The deal would've brought hundreds of job to the region. I had a good laugh with that article, the country is still a shit hole and there is no 'solution'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #9 January 10, 2005 That's not quite what I'm saying. I said action against targets inside Syria or Iran would be a "really bad idea". I didn't say that it would necessarily be "wrong". If there was evidence that those states were sponsoring terrorism then in an ideal world action could be taken. The problem is that the position in Iraq is far from ideal – coalition forces are so heavily engaged and overstretched that in the linked article the “senior military officer” states they are “losing”. Think what could easily happen if the US started to hit targets in Syria and Iran… Those two countries have very powerful armies on the borders of Iraq and they've not exactly shown a fear of using them in the past. Doing things such as attacking targets in their country and killing their innocent civilians (there is always "collateral" damage) when your military is so heavily engaged elsewhere in my book most certainly falls into the “really bad idea” category… i.e. it’s not the principal I have a problem with so much as the very real risks involved in carrying it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #10 January 10, 2005 QuoteWow, replace Bush with "Shrub" and you'd have the most original posting of the year. Nice contribution. Thanks. If you can't see the hypocrisy of his words and actions look harder. Quote So it's okay that Syria and Iran host and support the terror in Iraq, but not okay if we go and prevent them from doing exactly what you don't want us to do? Come on. Sometimes I think you guys are still so hung up on the fact that you don't think we should be there at all that you can't think clearly about what we should do since we're already there. I clearly think the US should leave. BTW, isn't the rate that people are dying in Iraq today higher than it was when SH was in power? QuoteLike Rhino said, this shouldn't even be discussed in the open. It should have already been going on. Trent Why? Because doing it in secret would make it more morally right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #11 January 10, 2005 Sorry to hear about the situation in El Salvador with your family. That is very saddening. I've spoken to a few people from there and they all just shake their heads and feel very disappointed with how things are when they feel it could be so much better. I just want to clarify my position, I do not support the wanton destruction of innocents and villages by groups of thugs trained by us. But I do think that we should train some counter-terrorism elements from within Iraq to handle their internal problems and to gather intelligence which may justify sending our special forces into Syria or Iran to disrupt the funding and support for foreign fighters in Iraq. Until the people we train have proven that they can be effective and trustworthy, we have to handle the brunt of it ourselves to avoid what did happen in El Salvador.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #12 January 10, 2005 I think it would be a "really bad idea" to openly engage Syria and Iran as well. But when, if, there is evidence (not evidence to you and me as much as to our people on the ground) that there are indeed targets supporting the terrorism in Iraq, that it should be dealt with quickly and quietly by SF. At least since Iran and Syria officially deny meddling in Iraq, while doing the opposite, we shouldn't let them get away with it. If "unofficial" terror funding and support networks start to disappear, there's not much recourse for these two countries. They're playing a secret game of chess, and can't complain when their pieces get taken. Outright engagement wouldn't be a good idea, I agree, but we, and Iraq, cannot let them get away with meddling.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #13 January 10, 2005 Funny, isn't that how you guys created OBL? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #14 January 10, 2005 Quoteand once again we will find ourselves supporting terrorism. You think we'd learn our lesson. What a pickle we are in eh? Damned if we do, damned if we don't... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #15 January 10, 2005 QuoteWhat a pickle we are in eh? Damned if we do, damned if we don't... It's okay, it ensures the profitability of the defense industry. Arm and train a couple of guys now and 15 years from now, you'll have another country to invade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #16 January 10, 2005 QuoteIn summary: counter insurgency = good cross boarder counter insurgency in the middle east = a really bad idea I agree to an extent. Problem is these countries are providing safe havens to the insurgents... What do they expext the Iraqi's and coalition to do? Turn and ignore it? This really boils down to getting a hard corps group of Iraqi's to fight for their own freedom. Something the current Iraqi national guard aren't doing such a great job at.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 January 10, 2005 QuoteOutright engagement wouldn't be a good idea, I agree, Yup... I just think that there is a high risk that were we to start cross border counter insurgency activities inside both or either Syria and Iran we would run a high risk of provoking them into open engagement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #18 January 10, 2005 QuoteFunny, isn't that how you guys created OBL? You guys? The ONLY person that can accept responsibility for the creation and sickness of OBL is OBL himself. He is a self made man and a menace to decent human life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #19 January 10, 2005 Quotethere is a high risk that were we to start cross border counter insurgency activities inside both or either Syria and Iran we would run a high risk of provoking them into open engagement. Of course you're right, but there is also a high risk of doing nothing. I think that, like I said, they'll lose any international support if it is found out that they are indeed supporting terrorism in Iraq, so if they lose some pieces on the sly... I don't think they'll make too much noise. But you're right, it could go the other way too.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #20 January 10, 2005 QuoteYou guys? The ONLY person that can accept responsibility for the creation and sickness of OBL is OBL himself. He is a self made man and a menace to decent human life. If only that were true... Quote Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian. While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm) And he's not the only one. SH was also upported by the CIA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #21 January 10, 2005 So we could just as easily blame the Soviets for OBL and the Iranians for SH, right? I mean, they were the initial reasons for these guys to even get started in their respective countries. Ah, fuck it, let's blame the US... it IS the cool thing to do nowadays.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #22 January 10, 2005 It will go the other way. I can see Iran complaining about the U.S intrusion and push further their nuclear agenda. Or syria could very well, in order to keep U.S intrusion away send more insurgents to Irak. The rest of the world would bash the U.S. for the death and torture of innocent people if found out. (and you know there will be "collateral damage") Very bad idea... you cannot fix a mistake with another mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #23 January 10, 2005 QuoteThe US would probably be pretty pissed off if the Iranian or Syrian military drove through Florida shooting at people - even if those people were bad. Well, First of all, this used to go on in the US and USSR all the time. Wouldn't be a new thing if it happened in the US. Also, no US troops would cross into syria or Iran. They would be Iraqi's trained by the US. I could never understand why we banned assasination. I say bring it back!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #24 January 10, 2005 QuoteSo we could just as easily blame the Soviets for OBL and the Iranians for SH, right? I mean, they were the initial reasons for these guys to even get started in their respective countries. Ah, fuck it, let's blame the US... it IS the cool thing to do nowadays. The US did train him and provided him with funds and arms. Not blaming the US for his actions after. But when you train an animal, why would you be suprised if he turns against you? I would have hoped that people learn, unfortunately we seem to enjoy making the same mistakes over and over and over again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #25 January 10, 2005 >What a pickle we are in eh? Damned if we do, damned if we don't... I agree 100%. But if we're to be damned for something, I'd rather be damned for fighting terrorism, instead of supporting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
