Al Qaeda is FAILING - Communications intercepted!

OK, so we got a letter dated December 2005 and it alludes to weakness. But since then, how much easier has the war on terror gotten to prove the point of this letter?

I'm just asking for the common sense. I'd like the letter to be true, but let's look at the stats...

In the same 9 months of this year compared to 2004 and 2005 there has been a 5.28% drop in deaths of american soldiers. Source http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Lets look at the cost.
FY Billions
2003 53.5
2004 77.3
2005 87.3
2006 101.8

Notice that in 2006 we are in only the 9th month and have spent 12.65% more then the entire FY 2005 and there can be a projected overall increase of cost of 18.86% increase if spending stays consistent for the year of 2006.There was 18.93% more then the entire FY of 2004 with a projected overall increase of cost of 25.24% overall increase if spending stays consistent for 2006. http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

Sounds like the enemy has weaked, something.

 

Yeh... tax payers wallets and reasonable people's tempers

 

I don't quite get you're arguement. You're saying it's better to kill the foot soldiers than the people at the top?

Far better kill the people at the top and then those that replace them, than the foot soldiers and those who replace them.

Killing foot soldiers won't make a blind bit of difference, they'll be 100 more in their place. Going after the leadership damages organisation, the flow of funds and communication. The very things that keeps them going and makes them dangerous.

Exactly, thank's for backing up my point. Terrorists don't choose the battlefronts that we want. They don't want to fight our armies, they's rather kill civillians. That's way invading a country won't work. These guys don't have contries, they'll move where they're required. Be it Iraq, Afghanisatn, Pakistan, London or New York.

 

Seems like a lot more are being killed and stopped over "there" than here on our homelands. One central war, jihadists from all over the world attend. Kill them there. We've captured/killed jihadists from the UK, the US, all over Europe and various other parts of the world right in Iraq. Draw them out of our lands and into one central location.

I'm not sure I actually made your point though.

Your response:

Doesn't seem like your original response where you ask "Who says they'll come to us?" matches up with your latest response. I took the liberty of bolding/underlining to illustrate this.

Not trying to twist or alter your words, just pointing out the differences.

 

Yes because it really is that simple

Typo - aren't
If you think terrorist will form up into ranks and fight an army, you're more of a fool than I gave you credit for

 

Okay Lorien good set of questions. I'm not a military strategist. here are some other considerations.

Problem areas for the US and West;

Gaza and Hezbollah --lets say its mostly Israel's problem for now....though Hezbollah is a serious issue with ingrained strength that Israel didn't disarm and the Nato troops there are not going to disarm.

Syria. no war now but its a problem country that supports Hezbollah...and probably supports the Sunni's in Iraq.

Iraq. Big problem area.

Iran...no war now....but supporting Hezbollah and Shiites in Iraq.

Al Queda---everywhere---but mostly in Pakistan and Afganistan with an ability to inspire to terrorists world wide.

Korea....no Islamic fundamentalists but a BIG BIG potential problem

home grown terrrorists around the world.

Others.


What is the state of our military? How many allies can we count on? Where are they most dangerous....where do we get our most terrorist destruction bang for the buck?

What is the long term strength of the US military in light of current manpower issues and ability to face potential multiple places where we are fighting.

Okay....take some other points. The NIE paper outlined 4 areas of terrorist unrest, one of which was the Iraq war. How do we deal with all that in the near and far term?

Basically we should be looking at all this and probably a bunch of other considerations that I'm not aware of and dealing with this stuff moving forward.

Should the considerations just be Afghanistan and Iraq....I don't know but I'm not sure that is it within a larger framework which includes the ability of the US military to handle multiple problems without military help elsewhere.

On the other side of the coin...what I find troublesome is that the war in Iraq seemed to arrive with virtually none of the above and myriads of other considerations being weighed.

Moreover it is continuing to move forwrad seemingly without any considerations for any of these other elements....and the current US administration got us into it (with what I consider certain false pretenses) and won't budge from moving us forward....beyond staying the course.

I'd ultimately end up relying on the judgement of qualified military and political leaders....but I don't think the triumvant of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are showing themselves to be the qualified leadership group.

Don't want to make it too political....but I'd just in different decision makers.

My concerns are how do we most effectively protect a Western World in the midst of many "enemies" with what are "limited resources".

 

How can anyone, on the left or right side of politics, ever conclude that the war on terror is going "well" is absolutely beyond me. The only thing positive since 9-11 is that it hasnt happened again..Other than that, in every area of combat we are loosing ground...you'd seriously have to be blind not to see that..or completely delusional.

Stop spewing out the same old tired bullshit propaganda Dubwa comes out with and ACTUALLY watch the news or read a newspaper.

Some conservatives are such fanboys they cant even see reality..

Wake up.

 

When you make up your mind, let me know.

Seems like you need a refresher course in your own advise.

Very weak.

 

I've already explained. If you're unable to grasp a simple concept of conventional warfare vs. guerrila warafre I'm not going to take you back to school

I doubt it, like I said, you're more of a fool than I give you credit for.

 

Nothing like being able to present a coherent arguement.

 

Yes, it would be good to hear one from sometime instead of bitching, sarcasm and deliberate misinterpretation.

 

So you have a friend, named "sometime?" Or was that another typo?

 

Yep, just the same as it's advice rather than advise, but I guess we all can't be perfect

 

Hey GTech, why are you not addressing the numbers? You flew right by them.

Numbers don't lie and you certainly can't explain them away with rhetoric.

What say you?

 

Is that strange? It's his usual tactic to ignore things he doesn't like and can't argue against and then he starts his usual bitching, sarcasm and deliberate misinterpretation.

 

Better let the dictionary know of your new found discovery

 

Impressive Matt, that may be the most coherent argument you've constructed yet! And building off another's post too, that was original!

Is there more where that came from?

 

I didn't realize you had addressed the post to me specifically. I hope it didn't hurt your feelings.

Hmm, "antiwar . com" I bet there's probably not a bias there, ya think? No hidden agenda, just fair and balanced reporting with your best source for antiwar news, viewpoints, and activities!

Good grief! Have you really stooped *that* low?

 

You can't be serious? They are numbers, that's all, not opinions. They are real, not made up. The source is this case in of no consequence, I only used raw data.

I personally took the raw data of the FY spending and did the percentages myself. Raw data that is available and provable as fact.

GO ahead, check "MY" math. It's fact, not opinion.

But nice try.

 

No, but I'll be sure to let them know you've found a new context for a word
Take your own advice
Take your own advise