The American Soldier

Great Debates
61

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.

62

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

63

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.

64

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.

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?

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.

65

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

66

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.

67

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.

68

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.

69

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??