Re: Myths - 'terrorists' will follow us home from, or take over, Iraq

On Mon, 28 May 2007 08:00:55 -0400, Just Judy <Just_Joody@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:50:57 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe that providing heavy weapons increases the likelihood
that they will, ultimately, be used against the coalition forces.

So we give 'em tanks, Bradleys, etc. as we leave... Let them decide to take
out the 5th floor of a hotel because there are snipers up there - they probably
will, while we might not.

Afaik, the insurgents/terrorists/insertnamehere are killing the
opposition with weapons less powerful than tanks. In a guerilla war
which is, imnsho, the status in Iraq, the fighters have made do with
some TNT, some pipes, etc.

You always want to be better armed than your enemy.

Iraq is not a war/battle/*.* that needs heavy weaponry in place
by either side.

Yet the Iraqi official said they wouldn't need us if they had heavy weapons.
When their soldiers get in trouble, they have to call us _because_ of our heavy
weapons. Hey, lets just give 'em the heavy weapons and go home. We can build
some more for ourselves.

What it needs, from the coalition pov, is intelligence
and penetration by Iraqis in order to use a few silenced weapons to
*blow away the bad guys*.

Don't understand.

And, the heavy weapons are necessary not just for terrorists, but to hold off
the likes if Iran and Syria, unless we want to do it for them by sending 2 or 3
carrier task groups there permanently.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it would seem that fielding 2
or 3 carrier task groups would be far easier than loading up the
Iraquis with heavy ordnance to fight of the Syrians and Iranians.

I think you're mistaken here. Its not easier if we have American pilots and
maybe American special forces deploying right back in there. If we're gonna
get out, then lets get out, and stay that way.

Surely, you'll remember what happened with many/most? of the Stinger
missiles we provided to Afghanistan for their battle with the USSR. :)

Yep. Its dangerous to give muslims such weapons. They seem to invariably fall
into hostile hands. Stingers are one thing. Tanks are something else again.
We should leave our tanks, which have to be getting long in the tooth anyway,
and just buy new ones when we come back home. If the Iraqi govt. can't keep
tanks from falling into the hands of the insurgents, then the insurgents were
destined to win anyway...

They have earned nothing from the US government.

What should they need to earn? _We_ attacked _them_. We're the ones that have
responsibility for their security now, since we went in and deprived them of
the ability to provide it for themselves.

Based on gas
prices at the pump yesterday ($3.15/regular) they haven't paid anything
either. ;)

?

But if we ever want to come home completely, they're going to have to have an
air force, too, so they can drop their own 500 lb bombs on top of terrorist
safe houses containing terrorist leaders. Without our help in this regard,
they won't be successful enough, most likely.

Do you really think it takes a 500# bomb to take out a safe
house?

That's what we used to kill Zarkawi (sp?) 2 of 'em, actually.

My issue in this *conversation* won't touch upon the media.
The fact that there are 10 or 300,000 people standing in line to join
the police department in Iraq is immaterial to my point. They aren't
doing enough, and I fail to see why any coalition member needs to die
for their freedom.

Because it is in our interest that they be a free nation.

What have *we* to gain by their freedom?

Trade. They have oil, remember? The free nation will presumeably be friendly
to us. A despotic regime, unless we set it up which we're not inclined to do
any more, will almost certainly be hostile to us, and _may_ even be a supporter
of state sponsored terrorism. Hey, we might just have to go right back in
there if we get more attacks on our soil, and find that they're coming from
Iraq.

Will terrorism cease,

No, but there might not be additional terrorism coming from Iraq...

or even be greatly reduced if coalition soldiers are killed protecting
those too unmotivated to protect themselves?

Its still a misconception that the Iraqis are unmotivated. These are lies
promoted by the US mainstream media that wish to portray that everything is
going badly in Iraq. Read the soldier blogs, watch the videos on the military
channel. The Iraqi soldiers are eager to kick terrorist ass all over their
country.

Their oil fields are like the town bank in a war where the enemy is advancing
on you. The bank is full of gold. Before you retreat, you're going to either
take the gold with you, or you're going to do your very best job of hiding it
that you can. The idea is to keep the gold out of the hands of the enemy.

You think the terrorists need oil?

The more money they have, the more people they can train to do terrorism, the
more 3rd world shithole officials they can bribe to cooperate with them, etc.

How much funding was
required for the attack on the London subway & buses?

I dunno. How much? How many people did the pay off to go as far as they did?
How did they get the explosives that they shouldn't have been able to get? Was
money the libricant responsible for that?

What about the
Madrid train bombing? What about the disco attack Thailand?

Dunno, but everything is easier with money.

How about having _additional_ attacks besides these, that involve them buying a
bizjet and flying it into the center of the super bowl crowd, where it
explodes, spreading anthrax all over the place. Easier with money.

I will agree that the attacks of September 11th weren't cheap
to fund, what with flying lessons, etc., but I will never believe that,
without the oil of the Middle East, there could be no further mass
killings by terrorists.

But with them, there could be more. Maybe we could get up to 1 a month,
eventually, if they had enough money. They sure don't seem to lack for
wild-eyed extremists willing to do these things. Money would seem to be the
only thing that they might lack.

The oil fields are the same way, only we can't take 'em and we can't hide 'em.
So, our best choice is to make sure that they don't fall into the hands of the
enemy by making sure that those that have them now retain them, and also are
friendly to us, preferably grateful to us. We've gotten part of the way there
by eliminating Saddam. He _was_ hated by most there. If we screw it up by
betraying all the people there that have helped us so far, and allow the
insurgents and Al Quada to win, and they subsequently do what we expect them to
do, which is to create a blood bath with everyone that opposed them, then we'll
screw up any chance of grateful cooperation, have a government that is
intensely hostile to us, which will do everything it can to make it tough on
us. They'll be a member of OPEC, so unless we get our act together with
alternative fuels, offshore drilling, drilling ANWR, and every other place that
flies an American flag and has 2 drops of oil, we'll be in more trouble than we
are now.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Either that or we'll
need to meet in a dark alley. ;)

<G>

You have all the rights that you're willing to fight for.

I really didn't need to spend any time making my post; I could
have merely copied your closing line and written "enuf said."

<G>
.

Quantcast