|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 19:52:55 GMT -5
But it's not starting a war. But I also am very angry at Obama for not only not lowering our presencein the Middle East but in someways escalating it. It's a lose lose situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 21:44:24 GMT -5
You've given no real good reasons why we are in the middle east. The only reason those waterways are critical is because we need them to ship that oil home. How in the bloody hell is Israel useful? Do you have an attention disorder that you cannot focus on a topic? Trade is an excellent reason to be in the ME. Protection of the freedom of the seas is an excellent reason to be in the ME. Observing the operations of a potential enemy is an excellent reason to be in the ME. Providing military support for an ally is an excellent reason to be in the ME. Finally, creating an opportunity to meet with and talk to those who are on the fence about opposing us is an excellent reason to be in the ME. Need any more? Trade is an excellent reason- if a person has any grasp of economics, or care about it at all. For those that care not, or understand not, there will never be a good explanation. But that won't change reality!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 21:46:07 GMT -5
Are you afraid Al Q is going to attack us with its navy? I'll be more specific for you, zen. I would rather keep AL Q forces actively engaged and on the defensive in the eastern Med (read that as Iraq, Afghanistan) to the degree we are able to do so, than try to defend against them after they have landed at Logan Airport. And overall its proven a pretty effective strategy. Keep the combat in the ME, off our soil.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 10:04:31 GMT -5
I'll be more specific for you, zen. I would rather keep AL Q forces actively engaged and on the defensive in the eastern Med (read that as Iraq, Afghanistan) to the degree we are able to do so, than try to defend against them after they have landed at Logan Airport. And overall its proven a pretty effective strategy. Keep the combat in the ME, off our soil. So you support the Iraq war then, too bad. With your posting I kinda hope whoever you vote for doesn't win . Effective strategy. Lol
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 6, 2013 10:21:19 GMT -5
And overall its proven a pretty effective strategy. Keep the combat in the ME, off our soil. So you support the Iraq war then, too bad. With your posting I kinda hope whoever you vote for doesn't win . Effective strategy. Lol Other than Benghazi, has there been an attack of US soil since 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 10:29:54 GMT -5
So you support the Iraq war then, too bad. With your posting I kinda hope whoever you vote for doesn't win . Effective strategy. Lol Other than Benghazi, has there been an attack of US soil since 9/11? Haha nice try . Benghazi! So our Middle East plan is working! Victory any day! (Wait... How will we know? ) The war on terror: a military subcontractors dream. Oh and the oil companies appreciate the support services!
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 6, 2013 10:48:56 GMT -5
Other than Benghazi, has there been an attack of US soil since 9/11? Haha nice try . Benghazi! So our Middle East plan is working! Victory any day! (Wait... How will we know? ) The war on terror: a military subcontractors dream. Oh and the oil companies appreciate the support services! You're the only one who is suggesting that there is an upcoming victory in the ME. FWIW, we agree that there can't be a victory if there are not measurements to define it. All I suggest is that the part of a forward combat strategy applicable to the ME in Iraq and Afghanistan that has contributed to preventing an attack on US soil (and yes, friend moses, the consulate in Benghazi is US soil and was attacked by an Al Q element) has been successful. Any nation, that is any nation capable of doing so, would rather fight on someone's else dirt. I really would recommend you read "On War" by Clausewitz, it is an excellent read on the relationship between politics, strategy and war. As to the rest of your post, well, I guess you feel a need to post nonsense each time, so I'll ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 11:02:57 GMT -5
So you support the Iraq war then, too bad. With your posting I kinda hope whoever you vote for doesn't win . Effective strategy. Lol Other than Benghazi, has there been an attack of US soil since 9/11? Boston anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 11:13:54 GMT -5
Haha nice try . Benghazi! So our Middle East plan is working! Victory any day! (Wait... How will we know? ) The war on terror: a military subcontractors dream. Oh and the oil companies appreciate the support services! You're the only one who is suggesting that there is an upcoming victory in the ME. FWIW, we agree that there can't be a victory if there are not measurements to define it. All I suggest is that the part of a forward combat strategy applicable to the ME in Iraq and Afghanistan that has contributed to preventing an attack on US soil (and yes, friend moses, the consulate in Benghazi is US soil and was attacked by an Al Q element) has been successful. Any nation, that is any nation capable of doing so, would rather fight on someone's else dirt. I really would recommend you read "On War" by Clausewitz, it is an excellent read on the relationship between politics, strategy and war. As to the rest of your post, well, I guess you feel a need to post nonsense each time, so I'll ignore it. That's funny. I consider your opinions nonsense too but I bit my tongue. Until now I guess. I didn't suggest nothing. The fact there is no defined vision of what victory looks like speaks volumes to any thinking person.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 6, 2013 11:14:29 GMT -5
Other than Benghazi, has there been an attack of US soil since 9/11? Boston anyone? Oh gads
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 15:39:44 GMT -5
I don't think there's much chance of them coming over here if we stop attacking them over there. Mostly they have gained power and recruited fighters *because* we are over there. And if we put the resources we're spending on attacking them over there into hardening our ports, the chance of them getting over here is small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 21:33:46 GMT -5
I don't think there's much chance of them coming over here if we stop attacking them over there. Mostly they have gained power and recruited fighters *because* we are over there. And if we put the resources we're spending on attacking them over there into hardening our ports, the chance of them getting over here is small. We can do both. Iraq and Afghanistan have been magnets for Al Quaeda groups to fight "infidels"- as has fighting in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya. Even homegrown American terrorists are flocking over there to fight, vs striking here (Boston being an exception). Syria is drawing in Sunni radicals, too- as much as we oppose the Shiite nations in ME, the Sunnis "allies' are the ones producing the most anti-American terrorists. Easier to attack a target close at hand than fly several thousand miles to hit it-- our overseas troops have no doubt drawn attention away from our shores.
|
|