How will they fight us here?

Question

Can you please tell me how that would work? I hadn't heard they had an Air Force or an Armada, so how do they amass enough fighters to bring the fight to us, I thought they were rag tag bands of insurgents and terrorists living in camps, or are there really magic carpets that they would fly here on? Are they Stealth carpets that radar wouldn't detect? Help me understand this please, thank you.

Because otherwise you're just saying we'll have another terrorist attack and the experts already say that's about a certainty so maybe if we stopped helping the terrorists recruit we'd have fewer of them to fight, is this faulted logic and how so?

to the 3rd poster I ask why haven't they done that then? Do you honestly think if that was the reality ( which by the way it's a terrorist attack and I did bring that up in the initial question and ackowledged that even the experts say it's inevitable) tha wouldn't have done it? Also given the fact that the abilty to strike more than once would be severly limited? Do you really think a group even a small one would not be noticedd or after these initail attacks we wouldn't be on the look out and vigilant? And the borders need sealing but republicans on this board always complain about wanting to keep thier money and hot the taxes are too high where is the cash coming from, hell we passed a law you see a fence getting built, The republicans are just as much if not more, remember they use more illegal labor than the libs since they say they're all the driving force in America

Mandy my family has 4 generations of military going back to the first ww war, and I'm telling you WW2 about proved that genuine comprimise of our borders by any relevent force is virtually impossible, Pearl Harbor ( lost a grand uncle there) was a hard hit but in the scheme of war it was the ONLY hard hit ew took on our own shores remember the bordering country's aren't all that differnt in thier goals or needs either

No Orion you hadn't gotten to the continuation of my logic yet but since you ask
understand that a large military assault isn't feasible against a widespread ill defined enemy, I think there's a helluva lot smarter way to fight this thing but the current administration is a bunch of clueless wonders, the money we've spent in Iraq could have increased our intelligence gathering ability 4 fold, more training for elite special forces for surgical strikes against identified targets, hearts and minds campaigns including but not limited to medical aid, infrastructure construction aid,educational aid, humanitarian aid, if everything you touch that benefits you is stamped U.S.A. eventually you're going to change your perception, support for human rights including sanctioning countries that have poor human rights records like Saudi Arabia, our supposed friend, Pakistan, again a "Supposed"ally, of course this is just a the basic concept, there are many other things in line with this that would

Answer 1

WOw, somone in America is paying attention!

It is the most craziest, dumbest argument a pro Bush supporter could make; that somehow, us pulling out of Iraq is going to suddenly cause attacks here in the U.S.....as if they aren't alredy here either legally or from simply crossing the Mexican border.

When I hear people make this ridiculous 2nd grade argument, I feel sorry for them because I know, they have had been taken by con artisits in their lives and they must be very bitter and mad at humanity from being taken so many times.
It really is an insult to the person using the argument's intelligence.
It's like saying your ABC's and skipping D E & F, it's an illogical conclusion that does not fit.
Wow! it's amazing we have so many dumb people in this country, for being as wealthy of a country as we are.

Answer 2

The tactic is pretty simple........let me explain...

First of all, they're not going to attack us conventionally, as you described. The Muslims cannot even defeat the Israelis on the battlefield, they have neither the guts nor the skill. They certainly would not try to invade us, in the normal sense of the word.

If you'll notice in the Middle East, the Muslims do not attack, generally, military targets. They find it easier to kill civilians who are defenseless. The chosen method is the bomb, or in case of some of their governments, chemical attack.

The U.S. has open borders, especially in the South and South-West. Millions of illegal immigrants enter this country annually. This is a weak spot. Liberals in government have refused to place border fences there or place National Guard units there who are given permission to arrest or use their weapons if necessary. So this is definitely an avenue a terrorist would take to infiltrate this country.

Terrorists would enter this country and form terrorist cells. After organizing, they would begin getting information on targets. Once that information is obtained, they would impliment their attacks. It would cause panic, in some cases, effects on the economy, and civil disorder. The government would do their usual, they would REACT, rather than PREVENT. But it would be too late, the damage would be done, and the terrorists would still be here on US soil.

They would basically impliment a guerilla war here. And if we don't seal off our borders and tighten security, that is exactly what they will do. If I can see this, then so can the terrorists, and I think they already have. It's just a matter of time.

Answer 3

You're making a huge assumption... that terrorists will attempt to form some huge combined military force. It just doesn't work that way. They do not employ conventional military tactics, nor will they. There are terrorist cells currently living in this country, infiltrating our college campuses and recruiting Amercian nationals for their cause. They have training camps on OUR soil... and they come across our borders in small groups, so as not to arouse suspicion. Our lax enforcement of immigration laws makes all this possible.

Islamic fanaticists BEEN at war with us for something over 28 years... when they took the American hostages in Iran. They DECLARED WAR on the United States at that time... They have never wavered from that stance. They continue to be "at war" with us... we just didn't JOIN the war until the last few years, when they started enacting the terrorist incidents they'd been planning for well over 20 years.

A new way of waging war demands a new way of thinking about national security... or risk losing any semblance of national security...

Answer 4

Dont under estimate your enemy. Thats arrogance and ego which can and will completely bring an army to it's knees.
My dad fought for many years in Angola, Mozambique and on our borders. South African Defence Force, which was highly praised as a military force.
Our soldeirs continually trained and supplied our terrs.
Then when Russian Mig's starting flying over their heads they were not shocked to learn that some terrs have now actually trained as pilots and coming back to bomb them.With all the technology you have, you have the worst rate of 'friendly fire' in any army, so what makes you think you can stop a few planes coming into to attack. Be awake, be aware, be strong and never assume.

Answer 5

They all ready are. There have been numerous, although isolated attacks within this country. Recently a Bosnian Muslim shot up a mall in Denver I believe. Multiply that a few hundred times. This is a world war, there will be winners and losers, appeasement is not the answer and never has been; history holds many examples of the failure of appeasement and the success of initiative. Will people die? Yes. But remember desiring peace is preparing for war.

Answer 6

The logic is not faulty - The idea is to make it MORE difficult for them to create another terrorist attack here.

By removing their fighters, by attracting their best and strongest to Iraq where our soldiers can kill them, by removing their training bases, logistical support, financial support, and idealogical bases, we reduce the number and strength of those fighting against us.

By YOUR logic, we should do nothing and let them just come in waves. This was the logic followed during the Clinton, Bush-I and Reagan years and resulted in attack after attack after attack and thousands of dead American civilians.

This current method has resulted in tens of thousands of dead terrorists and... no attacks and no dead civilians. We HAVE lost American soldiers. That's THEIR job.

Yes, another terrorist attack is a near statistical certainty. Let's make it as difficult for them as possible, and make it as weak as possible - and leave ourselves in the best position to respond. That's where we are now.

Orion

EDIT: Lad, you disprove your own points. The current strategies ARE working - that's WHY we haven't had a major attack here and most other countries HAVE (UK, France, Spain, etc) - We HAVE caught hundreds of cells here. Our interrogation of captured leaders is giving us intel to catch more and more every day - it's a snowball effect that is deadly to cellular organizations.

You say "understand that a large military assault isn't feasible against a widespread ill-defined enemy." - You are utterly incorrect. We have been doing that for some time - striking their 'safe houses', support facilities, weapons caches, assembly points - whenever two or more of them get together, they're getting annihilated. There is a reason the Arabs refer to Iraq as "The graveyard of al Queda".

You ask for more SF and Intel funding - both of which are being done as the Army shifts to a more mobile, lighter force (hence the shift in emphasis from heavy MBT armor to lighter Strykers). Our hunter/killer teams have made being the Leader of al Queda a short and brutal thing. You know we just caught the number 1 guy in Iraq...again.

You also say that you would prefer to see a "hearts and minds" campaign with a lot of civil affairs projects - Do you have ANY idea how many of those are going on over there? Do you have ANY idea how many have been completed? Do you have ANY idea how unpopular the terrorists become when they damage infrastructure that we built up and people were enjoying? We've been doing that too. A LOT. e-mail me and I'll get you links to many of these projects, including schools, hospitals, sewage projects, electrical plants, power lines, government buildings, road building and so on.

You refer to the current Government and Command Staff as 'clueless wonders'. - I think that is a very unfair characterization. You also say that you think there is a much smarter way. And what is that way, exactly? Let me ask YOU a few questions and let's see how qualified you are to determine strategy - especially in the face of Gen. Petraeus' rather stellar resume in this area.

Do you know the difference between Sunni and Shiite? Iraq is primarily which? Iran is primarily which? Which is al Queda? Hezbollah? Hamas? Do you know the difference between Arab, Persian, and Kurd? Do you know why it matters? Which provinces in Iraq are the primary source of conflict? Is the US casualty rate in Iraq higher, or lower than it is during peacetime? Are the majority of US casualties caused by accidents, or terrorist attack or combat? Can you tell me what neighborhoods in Baghdad are the primary source of conflict? Are they Shiite, or Sunni? Why does this matter? Does Moqtada al Sadr have ties to Iran? Is the Mahdi Army Shiite, or Sunni? Why are they surrendering to the US in increasing numbers and what are we currently doing about it? Is the main source of fighters in Iraq Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq? What effect has 'The Surge' strategy had on violence in Baghdad? What portion of the requested forces are already in place? Can you explain the cultural and political history of Iraq, particularly since 1948?

I know you can look these all up - but if you are The Man to come up with a 'smarter way' than all these 'clueless wonders', you should have an in-depth answer to every last one of these and be able to explain how they integrate. You should have that right at the tips of your fingers without hesitation.

Now honestly...Do you? I do. So you tell ME which of us is more qualified to track your logic through to a conclusion and be able to judge how well our strategy is working and which directions it might go? And then realize that Gen. Petraeus knows about 100x more about the subject and has a large staff that knows even more with daily intelligence briefings to keep him up to date.

Orion

2nd EDIT: I"m sorry. I have to chuckle at the poster below talking about how the belief that if we pull out of Iraq it will lead to more attacks here and how that is a 2nd grade argument. Pot, meet Kettle! Son, do you have ANY idea where little terrorists come from? Evidently not. Terrorism, insurgency, guerrilla campaigns, etc. all need some place to hang out, to train, to get funding, etc...We're denying them those places. Try reading once in a while, you might surprise yourself.

Answer 7

They don't hate us because of Iraq.. they hate us because of who we are ( infidels ).

If history has taught us anything.. it's that appeasement/apathy doesn't solve problems, it only encourages and empowers your enemies.

And FYI they have managed to carry out terrorist attacks in the US in the past.. you might have even heard something about it.

Answer 8

Huh.... What is September 11th 2001 for a 1000 alex.

Answer 9

no matter what we do to them we are the enemy because of the way we choose to live so there is no point in denying what they are gonna do to us it's just a matter of time and where they are gonna hit us now there is nothing we could do but wait and see what happens because the people who can make it right wont do it

Answer 10

seive boarders, dock waterway entries, and people we let in for good reasons or have let in in years past may turn against us plus rocket biologicals.