Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

[BrewCityBuck]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

I'm currently reading a book called "Overblown", it's about how our government and people in general overreact to terrorism.

It's facinating and I'm sure Gentile and Redneck would love it. It talks about how Al-Qaeda doesn't have the people or facilities to handle much less deploy any kind of WMD, not to mention how chemical weapons and 'dirty bombs' are an overrated weapon....A lot of it I already know from reading other books but there's lots of information that compounds my previous thoughts. It's a great read, I'm about half way through it. I've believed for a while now that Al-Qaeda had it's big bam on 9/11 and it will never top it, also that the use of WMD's are very unprobable....also that deploying chemical weapons is EXTREMELY difficult. The author and the other experts go into great detail. I'm not just pimping this great book, but what do you guys think about Al-Qaeda/Terrorists in general right now, it's weapons, future, overrated?...etc...

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

Great point. It's true. Al-Qaeda is fighting a war with 30-year old hand-me-down Chlashnikovs(sp?), driving around in 20 year old toyota four-runners and expecting to win a war against the United States Military: the greatest killing machine the world has ever known.

 

[the_pestilence]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 23 2007, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Great point. It's true. Al-Qaeda is fighting a war with 30-year old hand-me-down Chlashnikovs(sp?), driving around in 20 year old toyota four-runners and expecting to win a war against the United States Military: the greatest killing machine the world has ever known.</div>Al Quaeda isn't really the main group fighting us.....most of the insurgents are their rival organizations, they just did the initial attacks and scattered fighting here or there.

 

[redneck]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Apr 23 2007, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm currently reading a book called "Overblown", it's about how our government and people in general overreact to terrorism.

It's facinating and I'm sure Gentile and Redneck would love it. It talks about how Al-Qaeda doesn't have the people or facilities to handle much less deploy any kind of WMD, not to mention how chemical weapons and 'dirty bombs' are an overrated weapon....A lot of it I already know from reading other books but there's lots of information that compounds my previous thoughts. It's a great read, I'm about half way through it. I've believed for a while now that Al-Qaeda had it's big bam on 9/11 and it will never top it, also that the use of WMD's are very unprobable....also that deploying chemical weapons is EXTREMELY difficult. The author and the other experts go into great detail. I'm not just pimping this great book, but what do you guys think about Al-Qaeda/Terrorists in general right now, it's weapons, future, overrated?...etc...</div>I may have read some of that book; does that guy go into detail about how the CDC and Health department have cures/vacines/atidotes for most of chemical and or biological weapons that would most likely be used against the US? I agree that foriegn terrorism is getting overblown, but domestic terrorism is a real threat; yet our government doesn't even try to stop the local wackjobs.

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Al Quaeda isn't really the main group fighting us.....most of the insurgents are their rival organizations, they just did the initial attacks and scattered fighting here or there.</div>Does it matter? I mean, none of those losers could hit the broadside of a f*cking barn if they were standing 10 feet away from it. The US military is winning the war, just too many people these days aren't willing to pay for it with the necessary human lives. But seriously, the US hasn't even lost 4,000 soldiers yet. More people were killed in two hours at Virginia Tech, than the average weekend US soldiers spend fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerilla tactics work for a while but, in the end, the better military force will win out if given the time. Of course, in todays hippie-ass pussified USA, that will never happen.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 24 2007, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Guerilla tactics work for a while but, in the end, the better military force will win out if given the time. Of course, in todays hippie-ass pussified USA, that will never happen.</div> I don't think our military would ever be able to stop the insurgency....not with the location of Iraq and the countries that share it's border.

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think our military would ever be able to stop the insurgency....not with the location of Iraq and the countries that share it's border.</div>Yeah, especially in and around Baghdad. The politics wouldn't allow the US military to really bust open the whoop-ass, and rightfully so, we have to remember that Baghdad is a city like any other. We can't make matters worse for it's people.

 

[gentile]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 24 2007, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Does it matter? I mean, none of those losers could hit the broadside of a f*cking barn if they were standing 10 feet away from it. The US military is winning the war, just too many people these days aren't willing to pay for it with the necessary human lives. But seriously, the US hasn't even lost 4,000 soldiers yet. More people were killed in two hours at Virginia Tech, than the average weekend US soldiers spend fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerilla tactics work for a while but, in the end, the better military force will win out if given the time. Of course, in todays hippie-ass pussified USA, that will never happen.</div>You can't judge this war by death statistics alone. That's the smallest part of it, unless you die or lose a family member. The big picture should be focused on competence and intelligence, not balls and body count. And I didn't even mention money, but that's where competence and intelligence should immediately intersect.And no guerrilla war would have happened at all if we had A) put enough troops on the ground in the first place and

not allowed the Sunni army to dissolve into an insurgency. Neocons day in the sun was a nasty shadow for the rest of us globally.How do you fight a war in the middle of a civil war? Given the time, that is.

 

[valo35]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ Apr 25 2007, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And no guerrilla war would have happened at all if we had A) put enough troops on the ground in the first place and

not allowed the Sunni army to dissolve into an insurgency. Neocons day in the sun was a nasty shadow for the rest of us globally.How do you fight a war in the middle of a civil war? Given the time, that is.</div>For one, we couldn't put more troops into Iraq because we also had the war in Afghanistan, as well as other places we have our troops. Secondly, we was going to face guerrila warfare no matter what happened, even if we had not allowed the Sunni army to dissolve. They have been using guerrilla warfare and hit and run tactis since the beginning of us going into Iraq. Once we invaded the country successfully, and went into the occupancy stage, even more guerrila warfare was going to come about. That's their only way of standing up to the Americans, is to use guerrila warfare and hit and run tactics. They have known that since the beginning, and have used it since the beginning.

 

[gentile]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Apr 25 2007, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For one, we couldn't put more troops into Iraq because we also had the war in Afghanistan, as well as other places we have our troops. Secondly, we was going to face guerrila warfare no matter what happened, even if we had not allowed the Sunni army to dissolve. They have been using guerrilla warfare and hit and run tactis since the beginning of us going into Iraq. Once we invaded the country successfully, and went into the occupancy stage, even more guerrila warfare was going to come about. That's their only way of standing up to the Americans, is to use guerrila warfare and hit and run tactics. They have known that since the beginning, and have used it since the beginning.</div>The lip service from the top has been that this war is the priority - the front in the war on terror. If we can't put the proper number of troops on the ground, then why the rush? Slam dunk, my ass. It was a bad plan from the beginning, with an unclear basis, and it got worse once our woeful civilian bureaucracy got it's hands on it. Feel free to address this point.Facing 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops in a guerilla is better than facing 150,000 trained soldiers and officers, which Lieutenant General Jay Garner, the guy that was handling the postwar before Bremer, has pointed out. A guy under Rumsfeld at DOD, David Feith, just pushed massive de-Baathification as a policy before talking it over with anyone of importance. And Bremer followed orders. And our military and the whole country of Iraq paid the price as the insurgency snowballed and gained sophistication.For just 3 million dollars, he could have offered parole 137,000 soldiers. $20 a head - and got them invested in post-Saddam Iraq from the very beginning. This misstep cost us the war.

 

[valo35]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gentile @ Apr 26 2007, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The lip service from the top has been that this war is the priority - the front in the war on terror. If we can't put the proper number of troops on the ground, then why the rush? Slam dunk, my ass. It was a bad plan from the beginning, with an unclear basis, and it got worse once our woeful civilian bureaucracy got it's hands on it. Feel free to address this point.</div>The War in Afghanistan, while not as talked about, has always been more important to the U.S. military, because it was believed to be the biggest area for terrorism. Trying to stop the drug dealers, and drug ring that is flowing out of Afghanistan is vital because it is what is believed to be funding Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is the terrorist network that caused 9/11, and the Taliban was the government that housed Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda. They are much more likely to make an attempted attack, or a real attack on the U.S. than the people in Iraq are. That is why we can't bring troops away from Afghanistan to put into Iraq. The reason why Iraq gets so much more publicity is because it's the war that no one wants the military in, and it's the one that is causing the most casualties with both the U.S. military, and the Civilians. It is not more important than Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan is.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Facing 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops in a guerilla is better than facing 150,000 trained soldiers and officers, which Lieutenant General Jay Garner, the guy that was handling the postwar before Bremer, has pointed out.</div>I'm not real sure what you are trying to say here, so I might need you to clear that up. Who are the 150,000 well trained soldiers and officers, and who are the 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops?

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not real sure what you are trying to say here, so I might need you to clear that up. Who are the 150,000 well trained soldiers and officers, and who are the 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops?</div>Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think he's saying that the US is much better off facing a disorganize guerilla force than a properly trained professional army with proper leadership and decision making. And I agree with him.

 

[gentile]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Apr 26 2007, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The War in Afghanistan, while not as talked about, has always been more important to the U.S. military, because it was believed to be the biggest area for terrorism. Trying to stop the drug dealers, and drug ring that is flowing out of Afghanistan is vital because it is what is believed to be funding Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is the terrorist network that caused 9/11, and the Taliban was the government that housed Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda. They are much more likely to make an attempted attack, or a real attack on the U.S. than the people in Iraq are. That is why we can't bring troops away from Afghanistan to put into Iraq. The reason why Iraq gets so much more publicity is because it's the war that no one wants the military in, and it's the one that is causing the most casualties with both the U.S. military, and the Civilians. It is not more important than Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan is.I'm not real sure what you are trying to say here, so I might need you to clear that up. Who are the 150,000 well trained soldiers and officers, and who are the 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops?</div>-The reason that Iraq gets so much more publicity and attention is because it is a complete and utter balls up by a reckless and thoughtless administration. -Afghanistan is producing more poppy now than ever before and we got troops right there watching it. The military bows to the politics of that locality, and our phony U.S. "Drug War" trudges along eating money like Pacman.-The generals original plan for invading Iraq called for 350,000 troops. And in regards to your earlier point, this is America goddamit. We could have had those troops on the ground without taking them from Afghanistan. Rumsfeld essentially used the military as a guinea pig to test out a smaller faster force that could get in and get out. Read "Fiasco" or even better, "State of Denial." It's scary how clueless Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice, and Rumsfeld really are. He just got the last part really, really wrong, trying to fight the war on the cheap, discarding containment as an option without internal debate, and spending exponentially more money, Iraqi, and American lives in the process. -This game is about competence, not childishly idealistic notions of good and evil. And this administration has failed probably even by your own reckoning, if you'd care to admit it.

 

[gentile]

Re: Al Qaeda and it's weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not real sure what you are trying to say here, so I might need you to clear that up. Who are the 150,000 well trained soldiers and officers, and who are the 20,000 disorganized and poorly armed troops?</div>Saddam's whole Army could have been bought off for 3 million dollars. We were this close, before Feith, under secretary for policy at the Pentagon, decided that De-Baathification was an absolute must and it's the first thing Bremer did when he took over the provisional authority. This admistration has too many absolutists. They don't understand fine distinction. Because baathists were aligned with Nazi's and Feith's father survived a concentration camp, he came on himself trying to make this happen and it's the first or second biggest mistake of our occupation of this country. Now, they're well-armed, have instigated a Civil War, and are damn near impossible to stop because they're BUILDING momentum in their efforts.And all Bush can say is, "We're not going anywhere. We have to fight evil." We should fight stupidity first.