BleacherCoaches.com

These countries mostly don't have the capacity strike back with nuclear weapons, but Iran just might, and with their newly elected president, it might not be a good time to fool around with that idea.

Gunner, did you not understand what I am saying? It is by necessity that we are preoccupied in Iraq now, because we messed up, and it is now our obligation to fix it. We should at least have the decency to leave the place better than we found it. So no, I am not advising to go off and chase terrorists and forsake all other duties there.

But, What if we hadn't gotten involved in Iraq in the first place? Then we'd be free to chase these guys all around and kill them.

To have the ultimate home field advantage, as you say, against these terrorists, shouldn't we try to lure them into attacking us in the United States? Come on Gunner, that is ridiculous! Yes, there are certain advantages to knowing the terrain better and such, but the terrorists have shown us that they can attack us on our terrain, in our cities, and wherever we are, where we have a 'home field advantage.' Isn't it time to get serious, send a couple hundred thousand troops over there armed to the teeth, and show these mofos that we can fight and beat them at their own little game, on their own land, and not only beat them, but utterly annihilate them? Like it or not Gunner, to wipe out the terrorists and their threat to civilization, we have to track them to their mountain caves and holes in the ground, and beat them there, in their home. There is really no other way.

And not all the people in Gitmo are terrorists. You just said it yourself. And to be an enemy soldier doesn't necessarily qualify as a terrorist. If they were caught fighting for Saddam before or very shortly after his downfall, they probably were fighting for him out of fear. If you're an Iraqi soldier in Saddam's army, who do you fear more, the enemy or Saddam? Considering Saddam was a madman and would tortuer you, whereas at least with the enemy (United States) they would treat you nicer, or, if they shot you, you might die fast, I think they'd tend to fight out of fear for Saddam. Thus, an enemy soldier doing his job so as not to lose his life. Is he a terrorist, or he is just a very fearful soldier that happened to be fighting against us?

Well I think if these punks are hanging with terrorists they should be treated like terrorists.

[quote="fleaflicker";p="97427"]
Isn't it time to get serious, send a couple hundred thousand troops over there armed to the teeth, and show these mofos that we can fight and beat them at their own little game, on their own land, and not only beat them, but utterly annihilate them? Like it or not Gunner, to wipe out the terrorists and their threat to civilization, we have to track them to their mountain caves and holes in the ground, and beat them there, in their home. There is really no other way.
[/quote]

How do you propose we get tens of thousands of troops in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iran, etc?

With that many forces, we would have to invade, and invading another nation is an act of war. And it would be no different than Iraq - for the nation we invaded and for you bleeding heart liberals crying foul.

So how can you sit there "arm chair quarterbacking" and say it was wrong to go into Iraq but ok to do the EXACT same thing somewhere else? I always knew libs were hypocrits - you just proved it.

With Iraq we went in and knocked off their governent, which was an act of war and invasion. And you're right, that probably is too many troops. But we need to send severeal thousand troops over in there, have them go in small parties of 20 to 50 people, and search the mountains and whatever for terrorists. Because as I said earlier, the only way we will eliminate the terrorists is to fight and beat them on their own grou nd.

You're also right that that act could be called invasion, but supposing we got permission from the countries involved (to avoid it being intrepreted as an act of war) and didn't knock off any governments involved in those countries, then that would be totally different from Iraq, in which we went in with intentions to knock off Saddam and find all his WMD (which there are none). And all that would be a lot easier to justify if there were no terrorists than Iraq is, since there are no terrorists or WMD there.

Besides that, my idea about gathering that many troops and doing something is a conservative idea. I don't think the real Democrats would entertain the notion for a moment.

"hey saudi arabia this is GW, do ya mind if i send a few thousand troops to your country to kill the terrorists that your hiding there?"

im sure the saudis would certainly approve! flea your political and military stupidity amazes me more and more with every post.

about my homefield advantage...thats what we're trying to set up in iraq SO THAT TERRORISTS DONT COME HERE!!!!!!!! holy crap, its not that hard to understand, to defeat an enemy you must occupy a centralized location, and right now for us, that is iraq!!!! you cant just send trrops off into the desert looking for terrorists, that would take years and years, besides how would you know if theyre terrorists? just shoot anyone you find living in a cave? smart plan, but wait, your the one that believes there are innocent people at gitmo, so nevermind!

and about gitmo, if they fought out of fear, then guess what? THEY STILL FOUGHT AGAINST US, say i know someone that says he will shoot me if i dont shoot your parents, so i shoot them....are you saying your not going to charge me with murder?

If you shot my parents because somebody held a gun to your head and said do it, I would probably be charging the person that held the gun to your head, not you.

If Saudi Arabia is our friend, then surely they should mind if we send a few troops over (like special ops) to eliminate the terrorists from their country. IF they are our friend. And that's how we're going to have to do it for the entire Middle East. Because to beat the terrorists and to eliminate them, we're going to have to go to them. Face it, if the terrorists felt that going to fight against our troops in Iraq posed a grave danger against their terroristic operations, the most they'd do is send a few suicide bombers. And if that failed, they'd decide to forget about it and concentrate on putting another bomb in the (new) World Trade Center when it's erected. If they kept fighting our troops even though they were getting totally eliminated and not doing damage to our troops, they would be really, really stupid. And if they were that stupid, then they wouldn't be a threat in the first place. So, it isn't going to work...

so you would let me go scott free even though im the one that pulled the trigger? your iq is even lower than i thought flea!

and the soudis are about as friendly with us as bedford is with ridge. also how do you know that we dont have socom in saudia arabia and other middle eastern countries. all you know is what you watch on the boob tube and i can tell ya this....cnn doesnt know HALF of what goes on over there, and therefore, you know even LESS!

finally, if those bastards have the IQ to strap a bomb to their chest and go to our troops, what makes you think they wont just blow up the cave when our troops go in them? you cant just go out and fight someone thats willing to blow themselves up just for their god, it doesnt work, at least with what we're doing now the bodies of those lives that are lost are at least able to be brought home and given a proper burial... i dont know bout you but when i die, i wanna be in a coffin, in the ground, on AMERICAN soil, not under some heap of rocks in an afghany cave.

I'm not dumb Gunner, I'm just smart enough to realize that if somebody is holding a gun to your head, that you don't have much choice, therefore, you can't really be held responsible for your actions. If you did it WILLINGLY, that would be different, but you didn't. Therefore, if you weren't acting under your own free will (not that of the criminal), I'd hold you responsible. But how much power does a person with a gun to their head have over their decisions?

Gunner, they're suicide bombers willing to die for their cause. It may be dumb (by our standards) to strap a bomb to our chest, but they believe that once the bomb blows, they go to paradise and get 72 virgins and whatever. Besides, what kind of IQ does it take to make a bomb, plot out an attack, and figure out how to get very close to our troops without getting detected? Or what about setting off 3 bombs almost simultaneously on a London subway (not to mention making them and wiring them with cell phones)? Or what about plotting the attacks on 9-11 with going to flight school and all? These guys are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

And our troops, to actually enter the cave, would be dumb. If they knew terrorists were in the cave, they could throw in hand grenades and launch a missile or whatever in there to collapse the cave on top of them, rather than to risk their own hides with small arms fire.

And Saudi Arabia isn't a friendly country, then how is Bush friendly with their royal family? After all, he was friendly enough to make 28 pages of an incriminating document against them (9-11 Commission) disappear. But then, if they were involved in 9-11, they aren't really our friends. So how come Bush hasn't invaded them yet? But isn't it possibly to send a few special ops teams in, quietly take out some terrorists, and leave, without the host country ever being the wiser?

Back to Gitmo. How many drowned in the hurricane? I opened my daily dose of liberalism this morning, USA TODAY, and on page 3A at the lower left, I thought at first I was seeing a picture of a Muslim terrorist being tortured with water. Then I looked again, and read the caption. It was a six year old girl pouring a beach bucket of water on herself to cool down from the heat. What a novel concept- using a weapon of extreme torture on onesself just to cool off! Maybe there is something to pursue here. By the same token, we should give each prisoner a solitary confinement cell and toss in a pistol with one round in the chamber and tell them if they want to see Allah and get the 72 virgins, use it. Save us all a lot of grief.