Has the War in Iraq made us safer at home? - Page 3

kinggovernor · 09-12-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So if there were 140,000 additional US soldiers in Afghanistan, there would still be "talibanland" in Afghanistan?

c'mon armchair general, you should know that the troop level in afghanistan is at the level it is for a reason.

Thorgrim · 09-12-2006, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

c'mon armchair general, you should know that the troop level in afghanistan is at the level it is for a reason.

NATO military chiefs agree more combat troops needed for Afghanistan

Since more troops are needed, I am guessing they are at this level because Bush cares more about protecting terrorists than the American people

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

NATO military chiefs agree more combat troops needed for Afghanistan

Since more troops are needed, I am guessing they are at this level because Bush cares more about protecting terrorists than the American people

2k not 100k, they don't want to flood the country with an occupying military. I guess I assumed too much when I figured you knew how a special forces war is fought

Thorgrim · 09-13-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

2k not 100k, they don't want to flood the country with an occupying military. I guess I assumed too much when I figured you knew how a special forces war is fought

You said "the levels are there for a reason" now its "we need 2,000 more" make up your mind

special forces war?

Well, considering the Marines failed in Iraq and we're losing ground in Afghanistan, I don't have much faith in your "knowledge" on "how a special forces war is fought"

Donkey® · 09-13-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we didn't win in afghanistan by luck, it was by design. 500k troops in afghanistan would have been a disaster, what we did worked perfectly

We "won" in Afghanistan? Why are we still there getting killed? Where is Mullah Omar? Where is Bin Laden? The Afghanistani government is stable and a bastion of democracy? Personally, I don't think we have won shit there.

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You said "the levels are there for a reason" now its "we need 2,000 more" make up your mind

special forces war?

Well, considering the Marines failed in Iraq and we're losing ground in Afghanistan, I don't have much faith in your "knowledge" on "how a special forces war is fought"

troll, troll, troll your boat

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We "won" in Afghanistan? Why are we still there getting killed? Where is Mullah Omar? Where is Bin Laden? The Afghanistani government is stable and a bastion of democracy? Personally, I don't think we have won shit there.

when did I ever say it was over in afghanistan?

Donkey® · 09-13-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yea I have been a on the business end of those kinda of attacks, I know all about them. There has not been an attack on US soil in 5 years, I would much rather have terrorists attack trained Marines with .50 cal machineguns in armored trucks than civilians in office buildings

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil pre 9/11? Before that? (excluding domestics) So what exactly are you trying to put out there as a point? So in 5 years, no more attacks on US soil. How about Britain? Spain? Indonesia?

Thorgrim · 09-13-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

troll, troll, troll your boat

NBC and Pentagon sources > one person on LL (that being you)

Donkey® · 09-13-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

when did I ever say it was over in afghanistan?

A "win" would indicate "game over." We have not won.

Thorgrim · 09-13-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

troll, troll, troll your boat

Why don't you do more post reporting and less dodging of the issue

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-13-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is semantics to me, call them anti-US forces for all I care

Well the entire premise of your argument is that we're fighting them there so we don't have to here. That argument only works if the people you're fighting in Iraq are the same people who would fight us over here. Most of the people fighting over there are not al queda. They're locals with religious/ethnic disputes who have nothing to do with international terrorism. It's no coincidence of semantics that people who subscribe to your argument prefer the word "terrorist." It falsely implies the people fighting are the same people who would blow up buildings here...not to mention if you're attacking the military, you're by definition not a terrorist.

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil pre 9/11? Before that? (excluding domestics) So what exactly are you trying to put out there as a point? So in 5 years, no more attacks on US soil. How about Britain? Spain? Indonesia?

so terrorism isn't a concern?

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Well the entire premise of your argument is that we're fighting them there so we don't have to here. That argument only works if the people you're fighting in Iraq are the same people who would fight us over here. Most of the people fighting over there are not al queda. They're locals with religious/ethnic disputes who have nothing to do with international terrorism. It's no coincidence of semantics that people who subscribe to your argument prefer the word "terrorist." It falsely implies the people fighting are the same people who would blow up buildings here...not to mention if you're attacking the military, you're by definition not a terrorist.

Al Qaeda has put a call everyone and their mother to come to Iraq for the Jihad. There are many many foreign fighters in the country.

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

A "win" would indicate "game over." We have not won.

we won the intial invasion, I never said it was completely over

kinggovernor · 09-13-2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why don't you do more post reporting and less dodging of the issue

because when I point out holes in your arguement you will just say "well he is an experienced reporter, his opinion has to mean SOMETHING", whatever that something is.

Scrum · 09-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Al Qaeda has put a call everyone and their mother to come to Iraq for the Jihad. There are many many foreign fighters in the country.

4-10% and over half of them from Saudi Arabia.

I don't think a "terrorist" would rather hit our military rather than our civilians.

That's what makes them a terrorist.

WickedLou9 · 09-13-2006, 11:50 AM

Even if the terrorists are focusing on IRaq, it's simply because we have gone and put our boys over there for them to be targeted. Unless we plan on keeping the troops there forever, the focus will eventually shift back to the continental US.. Either way they are targeting Americans. I don't see the distinction.

WickedLou9 · 09-13-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Al Qaeda has put a call everyone and their mother to come to Iraq for the Jihad. There are many many foreign fighters in the country.

....And when our troops come home?

IminWonderland · 09-13-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so we should have just left afghanistan alone?

No, we should have just left it at Afghanistan.

View Poll Results: Are you safer than you were before the invasion of Iraq?
Yes. We brought the fight to the terrorists.	3	10.34%
No. If anything we are less safe.	23	79.31%
Not sure/Other/Will explain in thread	3	10.34%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll