This board makes me laugh (a reality check)

[ QUOTE ]
acm? What does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anti-Coalition Militants, i.e. bad guys.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what Al-Queadas mission is...All I have ever heard is the George Bush propaganda about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm. A lot of people from New York would disagree. You would do well to learn a subject before commenting on it. He, UBL, stated his mission on an ABC interview which had nothing to do with the government or the President.

[ QUOTE ]
What I do know about Osama Bin Laden (head of 'AQ') is that Ronald Regan provided material support to terrorists including OBL in Afganistan during the 1980's

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. We also provided the same type of support to Iraq at the same time. Gas was 75 cents a gallon, the Bears won the superbowl, lots of things happened in the 80s which don't mean a hell of a lot today.

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* What is this, the 3d grade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frequently it seems more like kindergarten.

[ QUOTE ]
I bet someone calls me a troll for saying that.

[/ QUOTE ]


Personally, I don't think you're a troll. I think you, and others in this forum, just refuse to believe there's a danger to our country and our way of life. Others of us do.

[ QUOTE ]
The response to Iraq violating no-fly zones seems a bit... disproportionate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq did not violate the no-fly zone. They had no air force left to fly. Those aircraft that weren't shot down, long before the no-fly zone was established, were tucked away in Iran, IIRC.

They did, however, fire missiles at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. And every time they did, that particular missile site was destroyed.

[adios]

Original poster wrote in part:

[ QUOTE ]
So what is reality? I’ve killed them, they’ve tried to kill me. I’ve talked to them (terrorists, members of AQ) and they are very focused on their mission and commanders intent. Their mission is to destroy our society, one way or another. Western Europe will be right after us, those poor idiots are really in a state of denial. The enemy are very clear about their mission and very focused on making it happen. I'd say being a suicide anything is pretty focused.

What is reality? That this is a war for National Survival, all the bs “background noise” is political fluff on both sides. "Background noise" is all the talk about what "we" should or should not be doing, all the political bs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's clear that OP is referring to the War on Terror when he refers to a war for national survival. With that said you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
What nation? Certainly not ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I think this is the crux of the difference between supporters of Bush policy and those who are opposed. The opponents to Bush policy to a large extent (not everyone who is opposed but IMO at least most of those who are) do not buy into the concept of a "War on Terror" nor do they buy into the concept that the "War on Terror" is a matter of U.S. national survival. Apologies if you were only referring to the war in Iraq but in reviewing the posts in context I assume that you are referring to the "War on Terror" as not being a matter of national survival. I only commented on your post because I think your comments get to why there is a deeply divided nation on this issue.

[elwoodblues]

I buy into the War on Terror. I don't buy that we are struggling against a terrorist threat that could any way threaten our nation's survival. That's beyond hyperbole.

[Peter666]

Ok, the invasion was wrong, but now that that is history we must deal with today's problems. Getting out of Iraq right now will not solve anything. Why continually harp about the invasion and try to use that incident to discredit the work being done now?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet someone calls me a troll for saying that.

[/ QUOTE ]


Personally, I don't think you're a troll. I think you, and others in this forum, just refuse to believe there's a danger to our country and our way of life. Others of us do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This administration's notion of imperial presidency is a far greater threat to "our country and our way of life" than AQ. It's a shame that you, and others in this forum, "just refuse to believe" that.

[sweetjazz]

Hey PR -- First, I want to say that I really appreciate your service and sacrifice in the military. I have a lot of respect for what you do (I'll be the first to admit I couldn't cut it in the military), and I believe strongly that our soldiers deserve to be treated well -- both by giving them the resources they need for their missions and taking care of them after they come home. I hope you are able to find your way onto Party and rake in some extra bucks in between your deployments. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about this war, but I respect where you are coming from and I want to become better informed. My primary objection to the war in Iraq is that I fear that the presence of American troops in the Middle East is recruiting as many or more terrorists than you and other brave soldiers are killing and capturing. This is based on reading different sources regarding what is going on down there, as you are right that I obviously don't know anything first hand.

Maybe you could help answer some questions for me. To what extent is the "insurgency" in Iraq made up of Arab terrorists who were already plotting against the U.S. before the war in Iraq? How many of them are disgruntled Sunnis?

How good is our intelligence finding terrorists? We have been told that we have eliminated many of the members of al Qaeda who had leadership roles in 2001, and it looks like we have made a good deal of progress disrupting the organizational capacity of al Qaeda. In my opinion, this has been our best achievement in the "War on Terror." But is al Qaeda filling these holes with new recruits? Are other terrorist organizations being created with similar goals against America?

I too find the threat of terrorism to be very serious and worth fighting. I am just skeptical that we are on the right course to minimize the prospect of another major attack. I think we are blessed that we have not been attacked since 2001, but I am concerned that it seems like there are even more Arab terrorists with designs on killing many Americans.

Anyway, I'd love hearing more about what you have experienced, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. (I'd especially be interested in how similar or different you think the enemy is in these two locations.) You definitely have an insight that the rest of us don't, and it would be great if you could share it with us.

God bless you and thank you for what you done for me and other Americans.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is stupid. One guy's opinions are deemed a "reality check" by himself? Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend? You have some good points, but to call this war one of national survival is embarassingly inept, but I point you to andy's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the GWOT is not a war of national survival what do you think it is? A war of convenience? What is Al Qaeda's stated mission?

You are in fact correct that this is one guy's opinion. But I guarantee you that my insight is far broader than many simply from first hand experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to matter for John Murtha, who has insight as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "GWOT" (which I assume means greater war on terror) is certainly not about national survival. On their best day, terrorists took 3,000 lives. More than that number were born that day. Terrorism is a media operation. It intends to strike fear into the population, because they cannot win a conventional war. You really think there's a legit chance of total destruction? I guess nuclear weapons could come into play, even though they would not decimate the nation. Regardless, I was referring more to the war in Iraq specifically.