It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
bisley wrote: »
So, what do you suggest? Get out and let them immediately go back to the way they were before we went there?
All I'm saying is that if it is going to be our policy to attack terrorist camps wherever we find them, we are better off to have some bases there so we don't have to go through the whole process of obtaining flyover permission and building up logistics to support a large enough fighting force to do the job. Besides, we probably need a couple of strong bases to menace Iran.
Teach wrote: »
Mike, when you rebuilt your house, did you try to "contain" a colony of termites to one corner of the building? As long as these 14th. Century troglodytes exist, they pose a serious threat to stability and peace worldwide. When the "moderate" muslims tolerate, and sometimes even assist them, the problem just keeps getting worse. Over here in the supposedly civilized part of the world, don't the bomb-throwers go by a different name, something called 'democrats"?
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.
If we pulled out of that region and left them to their own devices, and CONTAINED them there, I would predict that in the year 3,000 if one peeked in to see the situation that it would be no different then than it is now. With the exception that they'd have adopted the newest weapons available with which to kill each other. They don't shun ALL things modern.
― Douglas Adams
I'm a believer in the 25-50-25 rule....(my made up estimated figures). 25% of them are either actual terrorists or terrorist sympathizers....50% of them are afraid of the first 25% and won't report any suspicious activity, and the last 25% are decent people trying to have a decent life like everyone else. There's probably no way to identify the actual numbers, and I doubt there's been a study.
Sure, 'containment' is a halfway measure. But, what else are you going to get from politicians who are trying to get re-elected by constituents who lose patience with any plan that lasts more than a couple of weeks? Having 'training bases' of our own that can launch overwhelming strikes on short notice seems like a workable plan, and having it pay for itself from the country's natural resources is a good thing for taxpayers. It also diverts attention to local targets that can defend themselves.
Of course, it depends a lot on whether they actually have the minerals, and whether mining them can be cost effective. The articles I read about it did not pose a question about whether it was just a rumor, but rather, presented it as fact.