Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,935
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieKilo View Post
    Conspiracy theory BS
    Wow! We actually agree on three words!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    194
    Feedback Score
    0
    Good, the last thing we need is a 3rd front.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    80 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GMZ View Post
    Good, the last thing we need is a 3rd front.
    A terrorist group should not be able to get away with attacking Americans. A failed attack is still an attack. Those behind the bomber must be dealt with.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    194
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoBody View Post
    A terrorist group should not be able to get away with attacking Americans. A failed attack is still an attack. Those behind the bomber must be dealt with.
    Like weve dealt with OBL? We cant afford the 2 fronts we have now. Unless were doing it Entebbe style but I dont see that happening very much if at all. When does it stop? When we have entanglements in every country in the ME? Also, I would be willing to put money that Saudi Arabia puts more into terrorism than Yemen ($$$ which makes all their plots viable) why arent we rooting them out over there?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,760
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    As AQ did not exist during the Afghan war, and the CIA, via the ISI, did not support Bin Laden, as they did seven groups during that war, the above poster is thoroughly full of shit.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    194
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanB View Post
    As AQ did not exist during the Afghan war, and the CIA, via the ISI, did not support Bin Laden, as they did seven groups during that war, the above poster is thoroughly full of shit.
    What the hell are you talking about? Whos talking about the Afghan war (I assume you mean the 80's vintage)? I meant how we are "dealing" with OBL now, and if we were to widen the GWOT to Yemen why we wouldnt still be there searching for those that backed the attacks almost 10 years later like we are still searching for that bastard.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,760
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    GMZ, I was referring to CharlieKilo, not you. By the time I read the rest of the replies and wrote my piece I'd forgotten his name and just mentioned him being above me.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GMZ View Post
    Like weve dealt with OBL? We cant afford the 2 fronts we have now. Unless were doing it Entebbe style but I dont see that happening very much if at all. When does it stop? When we have entanglements in every country in the ME? Also, I would be willing to put money that Saudi Arabia puts more into terrorism than Yemen ($$$ which makes all their plots viable) why arent we rooting them out over there?


    We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.


    Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,963
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Sending troops to fight AQ in Yemen would have no effect at all. Sure, we may kill a few but our mere presence would generate more jihadis than we could eliminate. We have to get past the notion we are fighting a force that can be beaten on a battlefield, we aren't, we are fighting an idea. It is going to take much more more than a few sporadic and ineffective troop deployments to defeat an idea because we are not prepared to go to the lengths required to defeat this belief system militarily.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    194
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanB View Post
    GMZ, I was referring to CharlieKilo, not you. By the time I read the rest of the replies and wrote my piece I'd forgotten his name and just mentioned him being above me.
    No sweat, you had me scratching my head for a minute there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont31R View Post
    We could afford 10 fronts if we wanted to.


    Just the majority of the budget goes to social programs and debt than defense spending. We spend more on SS in a year than we have on Iraq since 2003.
    I wouldnt say 10 (dont think our mil could handle it, not on the scale of Iraq/A-Stan)but I agree we could afford more than 2, but we wont cut social programs to fund more fronts. I think we should cut both to avoid squandering a generation worth of wealth but thats another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by kmrtnsn View Post
    Sending troops to fight AQ in Yemen would have no effect at all. Sure, we may kill a few but our mere presence would generate more jihadis than we could eliminate. We have to get past the notion we are fighting a force that can be beaten on a battlefield, we aren't, we are fighting an idea. It is going to take much more more than a few sporadic and ineffective troop deployments to defeat an idea because we are not prepared to go to the lengths required to defeat this belief system militarily.
    Precisely, Israel has been dealing with this for how long?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •