Our weakness will KILL us in the long run?

Question

I just give up with the UK and Europe and to a large part the US as well. We are a bunch of yellow livered lefty liberals who instead of standing up for our values just want to apologise to everyone.

As much as people try and pretend otherwise, we all know why the 'war on terror' was started and what it stood for. And the large majority of the people supported it. But because it was not a quick war over in a few days, time to turn and run. Start pretending we have all forgotten why we went there in the first place because we all want to be faisonable and PC.

War is Hell. People die. It’s never nice. To those people who thought otherwise, you are just stupid.

I agreed with the reasons we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place. Nothing has changed in my view so I still agree with those reasons no matter how bad things get.

What we have achieved so far is sending a clear message to our enemies that we will turn tail and support the very people who want to see an end to our way of life after only a short time. The liberals and liberal media are our weakness and our enemies are using that very effectively against us. That’s why we will lose this war and ALL future wars.

Good luck to all our troops and sorry for the folks back home. Its not your fault.

By the way. I am a BRIT.

K Marx iii - Yep I think you may actulay belive half the cra.p you have written. Sad but there we are.

K Marx iii - NOT. You see you are the problem my son

Answer 1

You're right on the money, my friend !

Islam has learned well from the US's intolerance for long wars and no clear cut signs of winning. It realizes that time will diminish our resolve, and it will take another catastophic event to reopen our eyes. How sad is that ? Even worse, the g.d. liberals will blame the people at home for it's treatment of these devil worshipers !

This war with Islam will never be over, and it will spread to many countries, including our own. Yet the liberals insist on gun control when we should be establishing vigilantes. I'm an extremist by many standards, but those who think so now, will see that I'm just being pragmatic !

To many Brits, Tony Blair was a failure ! In the US, most conservatives see Tony Blair as a hero ! I believe history will be kind to Tony Blair and his legacy !

Answer 2

Yes, you are absolutely right. Weakness will kill us in the long run. But what is weakness?. Being gullible and easily fooled by those in authority is a weakness, because they will continue to manipulate you and make you a tool for their lies. The Iraq war was started on false pretenses ang forged intelligence information. That is a well known fact today. There were no WMDs found. Saddam never had a link with Al Qaeda and 9/11 at all.

Self-righteousness is also a weakness. Dictating to other nations how they should live and behave, and pushing your notion of what is correct into their throats even when it's contrary to their own beliefs of correctness and morals. This will just create more enemies and hatred to you. And this too, will kill you in the long run.

Answer 3

You would have been right but as a fellow Brit there are a few things you should be told. 1 We Brits do not all agree that the "War on Terror" is a genuine war that affects us. 2. The war on Iraq is to us Illegal and has nothing to do with A. The Bush "war on Terror or B. The said "WMD". And 3. Many innocent people (up to a million) have been killed and more, we do think that the WMD evidence has been fabricated. So we are not being chicken livered, its just that we do not believe that we should be doing this at all.

And finally, if you think that the attack on the WTC is enough reason to attack two countries, can I just remind you that the WTC is not exactly in Docklands and that New York is not UK.

And Tony Blair is despised by us. So he may be a hero to some but not to others. It would ave been different if some Mullahs blew up our stuff. Then you may be able to whinge.

Answer 4

I agree. We went into war, and things didn't go as smoothly as we thought, but that doesn't mean we should quit and leave. Then we would've just had a whole war over nothing. If we did that we would be saying that we won't defend what we believe in and we won't finish what we start. I think the US needs to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make it stable. No matter how bad it gets or if there is strong opposition. Finish what we started! I also think that all this anti-americanism is getting a lot of media attention while pro-americanism gets none. I support the troops 100% and i support the President of the US for going after what he believes is right (i'm not saying i agree or disagree with him) even though he faces tough opposition.

Answer 5

I am heartened to hear that you are a Brit -- I had given up on all of Europe and most of the United States.

Most of my countrypeople want things tied up in 30-minute slots, just like an episode of American Idol. They have no concept of a long war.

As you said, or reasons for going in were sound -- they have not changed. Why then do about 70% of the people feel differently about the war? I think it is because they have no core values and they don't want to be bothered to understand what the whole thing is about.

We will lose every war until it starts to hit home with them -- until there are suicide bombers in their neighborhood grocery store -- until their public transportation is a target -- until their child's primary school is taken over by radical Muslims. Then, they might wake up and support the war. But by then it might well be too late.

I suspect you are right -- our weakness will kill us.

The only hope I see is if the radical Muslims seriously attack a strong country that is not falling over itself to be PC. An angered Russia or China could put the genie back in the bottle. Perhaps a re-militarized Japan would do a good job of it.

But not the US. Not the UK. We have not been able to surrender fast enough.

Answer 6

I agree with you entirely, Questioner, save in a few respects:

(1) The structural problems in the various NATO militaries of today is deep-seated and "political correctness" is only a small part of the disease. We are paying dearly for having two generations of youth educated in universities by leftists often no better than the reactionaries they oppose. Cheap rhetoric, even cheaper standards for tenure, historical revisionism ... you can't hardly find an informed mind anymore.

(2) The NATO militaries either suffer from a serious lack of capital investment (shoddy gear, shoddy bases, shoddy personnel) as the best and brightest generally choose MBAs over military service, or from the twin evils of forced downsizing (in pursuit of cost savings) and being beholden to a defense procurement process that reward corporations over the legitimate needs of warfighters (at a net result of cost overruns). The things that won us the Second World War - make it cheap, make it fast, and make it in plenty - are no longer applicable today. Maturation for product lines with major weapon systems can take upto 25 years. Fewer and fewer firms create pricier and pricier weapons.

(3) The end result is, we have two militaries - the SpecWar types with open-ended budgets and great flexibility, who can tailor their unit composition and gear to the threat at hand; and the regular line units, whose equipment purchases are geared to fighting a Red Army that went belly-up in 1989, or with "high-tech" solutions from corporations that make plenty of $$$ selling "the new new thing". We drive with HMMWVs, whose chassis was meant for 9800lbs weight, loaded with armor and gear to top 28000lbs. On wheels. When all the IED threats are on the major roads, and having tracked vehicles to go offroad and use the other 90% of the Iraqi countryside would save us so much grief. The Israelis, who have been doing this stuff for years, thing the NATO militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan are crazy and have it all wrong.

(4) Which is true, because we have two militaries: The SpecWar types who do most of the really useful work, unhindered by doctrinal limitations or inflexible minds, and the regular line units, that can only operate effectively in conventional warfare and have severe equipment limitations. We have an entire class of military "professionals" who perpetuate the cost and waste abuse in procurement, go onto jobs with defense contractors, and sell us absolute crap. Then they turn around and sell us "solutions". It's ridiculous.

(5) So not only do we have a public behind us that is very keen on having the bad news off the air because they don't have the stomach to see things through or the brains to know what really needs to be done, but we have a bureaucracy that rewards people who say garbage like "the Stryker is so great" and kowtow before every cost-inefficient defense initiative so they can climb the promotion ladder. Warfighters are no longer important; PR skills matter more than leadership in combat.

6) If we lose, we're going to lose because of internal decay. Because neither the public nor the bureaucracy believes in sacrifice and doing the right thing, no matter the cost in money, resources, or pride.

(7) When I go back to Iraq for my third tour, I will rest easy with the knowledge that my rifle is a piece of garbage that hasn't been fixed in 40 years, my vehicles blow up like popcorn because whoever put the contract down never had to drive one, and that the various rules cooked up by the deskbound that keep me from doing my job effectively, coupled with the backstabbing from a good chunk of the public and the Third World types that want to see all Westerners dead, will eventually just help the enemy along to the point where we'll never be able to win a counterinsurgency like the British did in Malaya.

This is a new, sensitive world, for sensitive times. I hope all those TVs owned by those sensitive people who watch the news but don't understand what really goes on in the ground in the least catastrophically blow up on them.

By the way, Questioner, thank you. And I'm sorry. Really, really sorry.

Answer 7

I may not share the same unbridled passion as you in some aspects, but I do have an opinion:

Regardless of whether or not we approve of the reasons for going to war, the fact is that we are now there and at this point in the "game", if we DO pull out completely, it will just make things worse. We are there now, so now we have to resolve this because if we just leave, the message it sends can have deadly consequences. We would be leaving a fledgling governement to face a force deadlier than it can handle without allied assistance, such as U.S. and Britian, among others. We cannot do that. Because that government WOULD fail at this point, it would be overrun. It would put in charge a direct enemy of allied forces and because they would interpret our immediate withdrawal as weakness, that would enable other enemies of allied forces to all join together (even if they are former mortal enemies of one another) simply to ban together for the good of eliminating the evil they perceive to be allied forces. It is not good. It would alienate the (what would now be an overthrown) government and they would be subjected to unthinkable punishment for being the perceived "lapdogs" of the allied forces. None of it paints a good picture.

so, now that we are there. regardless of our approval, we have GOT to be smart. we cannot do an immediate withdrawal. doing so would exacerbate an already dire situation....why don't people get this??

I'm NOT saying being there is good. I'm NOT saying it's bad. My opinion at this point does not matter. My job is to support the troops because they're the ones who matter most. My job is to advocate for smart moves - I agree that we shouldn't be there indefinitely. But we HAVE to have a presence there for some time to help that government stabalize...and we HAVE to have a well thought out withdrawal plan....cold turkey is going to kill people....

That's my opinion....

Answer 8

So when did you get back from Iraq/Afghanistan or are you just another Brownshirt.

if you are a Brit check out the First Afghan War, 1 English Veteran, the rest all died. The British have invaded Afghanistan a half dozen times and Iraq three times, none very successfully.

Answer 9

agree totally..abandon sandland iraq to the towelhead camelshaggers and nuke the fuick out of it closely followed by iran and syria..for every hostage taken by the mudshite scum, crucify a thousand of theirs 'live' on the internet. the west is the cradle of democracy and civilisation our forefathers did not fight and sacrifice against the nazis and the nips just to surrender to a bunch of loathsome paedo rapist murdering sand niggers. We do ourselves and the small number of quiescent muslims a gr8 disservice by accommodation.. the only god they worship is hate and perversion and evil and destruction. I would feel no more loss or sorrow at their demise than when I'm exterminating vermin to prevent disease- it has to be done so that better people survive.

Answer 10

No not your weakness will kill you it is the opposite your strength if you keep harking on about every body else is bad&you are good. If USA stopped medddling in other peoples governments which it says is not good for USA. They just have them overthrown hence having dictators like Musharaf(of Pakistan) who over throw publically elected government. But is meeting USA`s approval. Bush is quite happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with dictators like that no wonder USA is weak when it applies double standards all the time. And gets away with. That`s what will destroy the world. The USA`s strength is it`s weakness.