# The American Soldier **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368 "2003-12-21T21:10:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/61 "2003-12-27T04:11:12Z")
Your “second front” theory and the fly-trap theory are the same ie. that the insurgency in Iraq is sucking away Al-queda resources form possible terrorist attacks on US soil. You have still failed to give a shred of evidence for this theory. I think it should be obvious that I am not advocating the fly-trap theory; just the opposite. As for the source of funding for the current insurgency it is a well-known fact that the Baathist absconded with huge amounts of money when their regime fell. They hardly need outside sources of money to carry out their insurgency. I can barely understand the rest of your “arguments”. Where are all the 9-11 operatives living right now? Well they are all pretty much dead, aren’t they? Please try to put some minimal amount of thought into the debate; it makes it easier on everyone. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/62 "2003-12-27T04:26:03Z")
BTW here is an earlier thread where the flaws in your “second front” theory were exposed. Since I don’t want to keep repeating the same arguments please read the thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=196760&highlight=lightning](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=196760&highlight=lightning) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/63 "2003-12-27T04:59:26Z")
> [@](#): > > War is less about being a touchy feely do-gooder than it is about killing the enemy and all who oppose you in battle. If what is happening in Iraq is lessening al qaeda, et alia’s spectre of influence in your neighborhood and the surrounding environs, why knock it? What fucking enemy? Iraq was not our enemy. Iraq had nothing to with 9/11 or al Qaeda. Your assertion that war is about “…killing your enemy and all who oppose you in battle” is a tautolgy. I have no idea what your point is. It sounds like you’re saying that Iraq is our enemy _because_ we attacked it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/64 "2003-12-27T06:01:32Z")
> [@](#): > > **Venzer** : About 2 years ago right after September 11th back when I was a cadet, a senior NCO instructor told my class: > > “Just so you all know, I was at the store yesterday, and this lady comes up to me. She said how grateful she was of us. I said thank you mam and left. I know the day before September 11th she didn’t give a shit about us.” Did your senior NCO instructor know this woman personally and know her reasons for expressing her thanks? If not, he made an ass of himself for no good reason. The lady did not do one damned thing wrong except to assume that someone in the military would like to hear words of encouragement. > [@](#): > > **kmg365** : …the guys catching the flak in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly contributing to the safety and security in the homefront that many Americans are now taking for granted. Those “guys” (women and men) aren’t catching flak from _us_. If I had had my way about it, they wouldn’t be catching flak in Iraq either. Nevertheless, I think most of us are aware of the sacrifices they are making. Their deaths, injuries and miseries make it even harder to tolerate an unwarranted war. Even Rumsfeld said that he doesn’t know that things are actually safer. Do you know something he doesn’t? People don’t _feel_ safer and the heightened alerts and the announcements from Tom Ridge suggest that this period is the most dangerious time since 9/11. Exactly why is it that we are supposed to feel safer? > [@](#): > > **kmg365** : War is less about being a touchy feely do-gooder than it is about killing the enemy and all who oppose you in battle. So no purpose is needed, correct? I _liked_ the choice for the _Time_ cover. Rumsfeld was under consideration and it was during an interview with him that he suggested that the “Person of the Year” should be the American soldier. And I looked upon the choice as a favorable cover as opposed to some in years past. But Kmg365 serves as a reminder that there is also still a darker side. There are still soldiers who believe that war is not about doing the right thing but about winning through killing. ---
**Author:** ![kmg365](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ec9cab/32.png) [@kmg365](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kmg365)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/65 "2003-12-27T19:42:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **Your “second front” theory and the fly-trap theory are the same ie. that the insurgency in Iraq is sucking away Al-queda resources form possible terrorist attacks on US soil.** Wrong. Creating a second front is a legitimate and time-tested military strategy where the enemy – or a second enemy – is fought on another front. There is nothing to prove or disprove in this respect; it is a simple reiteration of a fact. On the other hand, your “flytrap theory” is a made-up term concocted to explain something that has already happened, which in this case, has no basis in reality. FYI, during WW2, the Pacific War was considered the “Second Front”. No bozo would’ve dared called the Pacific War a “flytrap theory.” That would’ve been a grave insult to the thousands of U.S. servicement who served our country in the Pacific. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* You have still failed to give a shred of evidence for this theory. I think it should be obvious that I am not advocating the fly-trap theory; just the opposite._\* And unfortunately, so have you. FTR, I have not put forward a theory. I have simply stated the facts, and the facts indicate that at the moment, the U.S. military in IEF is deployed along a second front. Your usage of a “flytrap theory” is an exercise in attempting to explain the reasons for that deployment, which I disagree with. Of course you are not advocating the “fly-trap theory” per se. You misunderstood. All I’m saying is that by introducing and repeatedly using the term, you are advocating that such a term is in common usage. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* As for the source of funding for the current insurgency it is a well-known fact that the Baathist absconded with huge amounts of money when their regime fell. They hardly need outside sources of money to carry out their insurgency._\* Cite please? Or, if I could borrow your logic, it is a well-known fact that people such as yourself are thorougly incapable of substantiating claims made with nary a shred of evidence other than that such claims were pulled out of their ass. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* I can barely understand the rest of your “arguments”._\* No wonder. Your puerile writing style, demonstrated inability to read for comprehension and ham-fisted logic indicates that you are probably a minor. I will try to use easier words for you next time. In lieu of that, try boning up on your reading comprehension skills. Better yet, try reading. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **Where are all the 9-11 operatives living right now? Well they are all pretty much dead, aren’t they?** Please tell me that you are not so naive as to believe that everyone who was responsible for planning 9-11 died on board those planes. I’ll tell ya’, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*Please try to put some minimal amount of thought into the debate; it makes it easier on everyone. \*\* Spare us the condescending comments and remarks if you please. It is unseemly, and it is absurd to think that you speak for others. The problem is not what I wrote. The problem is that you are not taking the time to read and reflect carefully. You’ll be amazed at what you can pick up if you actually took the time to read for comprehension. Barring that, spare us the effort b/c you are obviously trolling and wasting other people’s time with your flippant statements, knee-jerk responses, incoherent musings and disorganized rambling-ons. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/66 "2003-12-27T20:03:09Z")
Look just creating a second front by itself doesn’t mean that you will automatically relieve pressure on the first front. If the second front is against a new set of enemies (ie. Baathists) there is no reason to believe this. You have claimed that the “second front” in Iraq will relieve Al-quaeda pressue on the US. That **is** the “flytrap” or “lightning-rod” theory. You have failed to provide any evidence for this theory. I have given a link were the theory has been dissected in detail. I suggest you take a look at it. As for 9-11 I believe the term “operative” would be applicable to the people who carried out the operation not the ones who planned it. In any case I have no clue as to the relevance of whatever point you were to make. And no that has nothing to do with my reading ability; rather with the fact that you don’t seem to have a good grasp of the notion of evidence. Hint: making random observations and asking irrelevant questions doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/67 "2003-12-28T01:02:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by swami \* > \*\*Come on **capacitor** , Osama was **the** 2001 news story. Not just for the US, but also world round. No one came close to topping him that year certainly not Giuliani. Also if he came in too late in the year for 2001, why didn’t he win the 2002 award? > > It’s clear that Time just didn’t want the hassle, so they took the easy way out (It’s not horrible just lazy). I think they should just rename the award to “Top news story of the year” or “Top news subject of the year”. It might clear things up. \*\* Giuliani was about to fight Clinton for a seat in the US Senate in the beginning of the year 2001. First Lady vs most successful politician in the US. Other than a presidential election, it cannot be bigger than this. Meanwhile, Osama was busy in Africa to relatively little fanfare. Then came the fallout from the shooting incidents and Giuliani’s affair, forcing him to bow out and be a highly mocked, protate cancer suffering lame duck, of which he survived. Then came 9/11, and Giuliani’s subsequent leadership aiding the recovery of America’s morale, while Osama was bragging about it. Then the US troops took over Afghanistan, a country paid for by Osama. Osama is on the run. Giuliani had a year of tremendous lows and highly adverse situations, lows very few people have recovered, much less thrived upon. Because he did recover and thrive gracefully and humbly, America was able to recover as well. That’s why he deserved to be man of the year. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/68 "2003-12-28T01:06:10Z")
That said, I would have felt a bit better if Bush just came out and said he was attacking Sadaam for laughing about 9/11 and that blatant show of supporting palaestinian terrorists instead of helping with the palestinian infrastructure. Why else would Americans think that Sadaam was involved? Sadaam laughed about 9/11, and was the only head of state that did. I knew that when he did that he wil be targeted. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Saul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/58f4c7/32.png) [@Roland\_Saul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Saul)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368/69 "2003-12-28T03:44:51Z")
I would ask, kmg365, for one SHRED of reasonable evidence that indicates ANY improvement in security for America since the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The insurmountable volume of hard evidence directly proves that Iraq isn’t any safer now, quite the opposite. Just how do you conjure the image of a safer America from the evidence at hand? What logic would show that anti-American sentiment has been dissolved by this particular action? So far, the exact opposite is true. The American forces are under increasing attacks by the very terrorist that are suposed to be eliminated. Every single day that Iraqis live under razor wire and gun-barrels I’m sure they grow more pro-American, don’t you? Would you have us believe that the threat of terror from Afghani-funded sources is now LESSENED after the stellar performance or the "reconstruction and control " crew there?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-soldier/220368.md?page=3)