Afghanistan

[© tweed]

jmfcst also advocated the mass murder of Arabs...

when?

it would take a while to dig things up, but I do distinctly remember you advocating we kill civilians in countries that harbor terrorists at a rate of 1000x or 10000x that rate which they kill US civilians, that you would prefer reducing Iraq/Iran to piles of rubble rather than going through with a full scale invasion and occupation, etc.

[Cory]

it would take a while to dig things up, but I do distinctly remember you advocating we kill civilians in countries that harbor terrorists at a rate of 1000x or 10000x that rate which they kill US civilians, that you would prefer reducing Iraq/Iran to piles of rubble rather than going through with a full scale invasion and occupation, etc.

Unfortunately I encounter this type of thinking amongst Republicans and conservatives all the time. Followed of course by a lecture saying how Saddam would still be killing people if we haven't invaded. The irony is lost on them.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am not here to be Mr. Congeniality... if the choice presented to me is reducing Iran to rubble without risking hte life of a single American or allied soldier or to invade and risk thousands of our people's lives, it's the former...I am an American and I care more about our people then about theirs
Let the firing squad begin...

[dead0man]

Well thankfully there are options other than just those two.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You are right- and I believe Obama is correct in moving towards drone warfare and using techonlogy over manpower to advance our interests

[Хahar 🤔]

I am not here to be Mr. Congeniality

Why are you here? Serious question.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

To discuss politics with smart and respectful people.... people who disagree but who do more then take one line and make a crack-

[Jacobtm]

My heart weeps for these men and women....I know what it is like to wonder what the hell you are trying to acheive...and why in the world you are risking your life for people who want you to leave
If the Afghans have an issue with the way we are doing things- I say we gt the f--- out of there and see if they can do better! Enough is enough!!!

The Afghans certainly have an issue with foreigners occupying their country for more than 10 years.

You're right, we should simply leave Afghanistan.

Then we can leave all the other Muslim countries that we have military bases in.

[Zarn]

The jmfsct philosophy is a very violent one. We need to send NATO troops to his house and liberate it for 10 or so years.

[Jacobtm]

then you should also remember the point of that thread was an exercise to prove there is no way to stop the Muslim mob unless we wipe them off the face of the earth...and since we are unwilling to do that, there is no way to win the "War on Terror".  

 Specifically, I wanted Bush to play hit and run throughout the ME, destroying the armed forces of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan...and then come home...

So you claim there is no way to end the war on terror, and then propose hit-and-run terrorizing of just about every country in the Middle East.

The reason we have a problem with terrorism is our very military presence on Muslim lands. They see many muslim countries occupied by the U.S. military, especially Saudi Arabia, home of The Prophet Muhammed.

Our support for Israel, and their continued opression of Palestinians, hurts us as well.

It is our actions that bring terrorists to hate us. And obviously bombing just about every country in the Middle East so that they're left weakened wouldn't do a thing to stop that.

No longer bombing anyone in the Middle East, no longer supporting Israel, and no longer maintaining military bases in the Middle East, however, would stop antagonizing Muslims and would largely end the War on Terror, since there would be no animating cause for the Muslims to fight against.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you claim there is no way to end the war on terror, and then propose hit-and-run terrorizing of just about every country in the Middle East.

not terrorizing the citizens, but destroying their armed forces...take Iraq for example, once we destroyed their military, we're not worried about Iraq being a military threat.

if we played hit and run throughout the ME, destroying the armed forces of the Muslim nations, we at least can keep the ongoing war relatively smalled scaled by limiting the power of the control governments of the Muslim states...but the way it is now, Iran is growing in strength, and Egypt and much of the gulf states are armed to the teeth with American tanks and aircraft.

If Bush had followed the jmfcst war strategy, the Islamists in Egypt wouldn't be on the verge of gaining control of Egypt's 200+ F16's and 1000+ M1 Abrams tanks.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

as I said, if my strategy after 9/11 had been followed, we wouldn't be worrying about Islamists starting WWIII, and our troops would have been home by 2004:

Afghanistan and Iraq are merely launching platforms for attacks against Iran. Why do you think the US wants bases in Iraq? Certainly not for the scenery, weather or to protect the tourist industry.

well, one can only hope, because using Iraq as a launching pad was always my goal for invading Iraq:

I supported this current invasion into Iraq because I thought it was a stepping stone into Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.  I never would have supported it knowing Iraq was the first and last stop on the tour.

and

If I were Pres, I would have played hit and run all through the middle east...in the followinig order:

1) Iraq
2) Iran
3) Syria

I wouldn't have tried to establish Democracy, I simply would have destroyed all their armies.

---

I vote "No", not in the way Bush did it, and not with Bush's intentions of trying to establish Democracy in Iraq.  I simply would have knocked their jocks in the dirt and let them pick up the pieces.

...and I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2002, months before it happened, because I believed the stories I was reading about Bush's intentions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jacobtm]

So you claim there is no way to end the war on terror, and then propose hit-and-run terrorizing of just about every country in the Middle East.

not terrorizing the citizens, but destroying their armed forces...take Iraq for example, once we destroyed their military, we're not worried about Iraq being a military threat.

Iraq was never a military threat. Neither was Afghanistan, nor is Iran.

The threat is that terrorists attack the United States.

And, not that they need any more convincing that the United States is involved in a long-term war against Islam, but destroying the militaries of every Muslim country would certainly galvanize even more jihadists to do their Islamic duty and defend their land from attacks.

Your strategy would be the one that would bring ever more terrorists attack upon the U.S., by trying to eliminate ''military threats'' that aren't threats to begin with. Your strategy is just state-on-state terrorism, and (not that you care) blatantly illegal.