Just out of interest - in reference to another post.

Trav - watch the poll scores

lol, just like everything else in this place, split down the middle 3 to 3

Well...it's 4-3 now, but the statements that we were given as choices are not balanced..

The first statement asks for a subjective opinion to be formed, and the second statement makes a specific comparison between WWII and the "War on Terror".

you are right - I fixed it

this is an unfair question, because most people on here do not know much about WW2. they know it happened, if we are lucky they know who fought in it and on what sides, but knowledge of battles and things like that are not common knowledge. the sheer scope of the intelligence gathering is not common knowledge, with the capture of the enigma machines and hundreds of thousands of people cracking codes, spying, flying photo recon, I say if they went through all that, it was pretty damn important.

You don't need to know much about WWII to know the quite obvious answer to that question when in the war on terror you need intelligence before you even know who the enemy is.

Anyway - it's a question, it's not unfair simply because someone may not know the right answer.

Originally posted by Travh20
this is an unfair question, because most people on here do not know much about WW2. they know it happened, if we are lucky they know who fought in it and on what sides, but knowledge of battles and things like that are not common knowledge. the sheer scope of the intelligence gathering is not common knowledge, with the capture of the enigma machines and hundreds of thousands of people cracking codes, spying, flying photo recon, I say if they went through all that, it was pretty damn important.

I don't think the question is unfair, but I do think that the comparison between the War on Terror and WWII is an invalid one. If you want to make a comparison between the War on Terror and WWII, then I think one incident in WWII might be comparable. The assassination, for lack of a better term, of Admiral Yamamoto. Trav, I'm sure you're familiar with this incident, but for those who aren't I'll summarize it. Admiral Yamamoto was the highest ranking officer in the Japanese Navy, and was the man responsible for planning the attack on Pearl Harbor. During the campaign for the Solomon Islands, U.S. intelligence services intercepted and decoded a Japanese radio transmission that listed Admiral Yamamotos itinerary for an upcoming inspection tour of Japanese airbases in the area. Using this information, Admiral Yamamoto's plane was intercepted by American fighter planes and shot down over the island of Bougainville on April 18, 1943.

I think this comparison is a good one because if we hadn't intercepted the Japanese radio transmission, the "battle" over Bougainville wouldn't have happened at all. This will be the way the War on Terror is fought. No intelligence=no battle. In this sense intelligence is far more important today than it was in most of the battles of WWII.

but I do think that the comparison between the War on Terror and WWII is an invalid one

Agree - they are like chalk & cheese.

I think the next poll will be

What does 1+1 equal

A) 2
B) 3

I think intelligence was very important in WWII too. For instance, the battle of Midway, which turned the Pacific war around, was largely won because of successfully cracking Japanese code.

Yes no question that intelligence was very important in WWII

look at all the trouble the allies wen through to crack the Enigma code. with taht the tide of the war turned, big time. it can be argued the war was won with intelligence.

No it couldn't.

WWII was won by millions of soldiers, guns, bombs, artilery, tanks, planes and the deaths of millions in combat. Intelligence was crucial but no amount of intelligence could substitute for weapons and soldiers

The war on terror if the necessary intelligence was available could be won without a single shot being fired or a single soldier being involved.

That is the difference.

LMAO, man you are out in left field. you honewstly believe intelligence alone can do anything? now you are just talking shit. so lets say you find bin laden in a cave in afghanistan, for sure 100 % there, how do you plan on getting him out? send him an email telling him you have intelligence on him? this argument just got sureal. now we are able to win the war on terror without a shot fired :rolleyes: I suppose the terrorists will just turn themselves in. seriously drew, you have to be exagerating about that not a shot fired thing right?

Trav - your response doesn't suprise me at all.

Firstly - you will notice that I did not say that the war on terror would be won without a shot fired - I said with the necessary intelligence being available - ie a hypothetical example used only to highlight a comparison between WWII & today.

Now, assuming perfect intelligence was available we'd just arrest the terrorists before they planted any bombs or took any action because afterall this is a war of intelligence, not a war of armies - ie no terrorist act would be possible because we would be able to prevent it before it happened (perfect intelligence).

Don't lose me now - keep the word hypothetical in front of you.

Who would care about Bin Laden in that situation - he could rot in his cave because he would be no threat. Remember - Bin Laden is a leader of terrorist thinking - he doesn't actually do any terrorist acts himself.

So, before you blow a gasket - stop and think. I am not saying that the war on terror would be won in actuality without a shot being fired - I am simply using a hypothetical comparision to help you understand why WWII and the war on terror are like chalk and cheese. In WWII you could have perfect intelligence but unless you had lots of soldiers, guns and heavy equipment - the knowledge would do nothing to stop the Nazi tank rolling over your head.

Maybe I should rename this forum 'Trav flew over the cukoo's nest'

I am really starting to wonder if you even know what intelligence is and what it is used for. seems like if we do it your way we find out that the terrorists want to blow up a buildingin NYC. you wait until they are in the act of doing it then arrest them? you keep saying arrest like we can just go into any old country and arrest people. in case you didnt notice, the majority of terrorists are not hiding out in countries friendly to us. we cant simply send law enforcement officers into hostile countries to arrest a few individual terrorists. the idea of intelligence is to find the terrorists and destroy them BEFORE they do the plotting and scheming, not wait until they are done and hope you catch them before they can pull it off.

and you cant use the american legal system to fight terrorists, because you would have to either wait until individual terrorists commit a crime, or hope you catch them in the act. otherwise you have no case in our courts, unless you can somehow prove their intentions. the whole purpose is to prevent an attack, not prosecute a terrorist after the fact. the law enforcement approach is just not practical in this situation, sorry.

Bangs head on table in frustration :comphit:

Mental note - never again use a hypothetical example to illustrate a point

LMAO, I love that computer puch out thing, I will have to remember to use that more often, LOL

could you make a little smiley pulling out a gun and blowing his own head off in frustration? that would be a good one

Originally posted by Travh20
I am really starting to wonder if you even know what intelligence is and what it is used for. seems like if we do it your way we find out that the terrorists want to blow up a buildingin NYC. you wait until they are in the act of doing it then arrest them? you keep saying arrest like we can just go into any old country and arrest people. in case you didnt notice, the majority of terrorists are not hiding out in countries friendly to us. we cant simply send law enforcement officers into hostile countries to arrest a few individual terrorists. the idea of intelligence is to find the terrorists and destroy them BEFORE they do the plotting and scheming, not wait until they are done and hope you catch them before they can pull it off.

and you cant use the american legal system to fight terrorists, because you would have to either wait until individual terrorists commit a crime, or hope you catch them in the act. otherwise you have no case in our courts, unless you can somehow prove their intentions. the whole purpose is to prevent an attack, not prosecute a terrorist after the fact. the law enforcement approach is just not practical in this situation, sorry.

Trav, you really can be obtuse when you want to be.

If we had adequate intelligence we could arrest terrorists when they enter the country before they plant their bombs and so forth. Our criminal justice system would work just fine within our borders and we could use the military when neccessary outside of our borders. The whole point of this thread is that the War on Terror cannot and will not be won by the military. It will be won or lost by the quality and quantity of intelligence we are able to gather about these groups. There is no doubt about our ability to handle the terrorists from a military standpoint. there is considerable doubt about our ability to gather the requisite intelligence that will allow us to take the war to the terrorists. All we seem to be capable of now is to put troops into a foreign country and wait for the terrorists to attack them. :hitout:

now would be a good time for that smiley pulling out a gun, rolling his eyes and bnlowing his own head off in frustration

I'm sure that you do in fact understand the point & your apparent lack of ability to understand a very very simple point is just an attempt to be difficult.

Is it really that hard a distinction to understand? Come on Trav - surely you can see that we want to stop terrorists blowing up our citizens and in order to blow up our citizens the terrorists must by default BE IN THE USA - not in a cave in Afghanistan. If we can stop them when they ARE IN THE USA - then NO TERRORIST ACTS can ever occur = The War would be WON.

This is exactly what the CIA & the FBI are trying to do. This is why 9-11 is called a failure of Intelligence, not a failure of the Military.

yes, i get it, but thats where we differ. you want to catch them and put them in jail when they get here, I want to hunt them down and kill them before they get here.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, i get it, but thats where we differ. you want to catch them and put them in jail when they get here, I want to hunt them down and kill them before they get here.

Yet again Trav you read something and make assumptions based on what you think is written but in fact was never written :rolleyes:

Where did I EVER say that my position was that I didn't want to hunt them down and kill them before they get here??? - You won't find it Trav because I have never said that & that is certainly not my position. Please take more time to read and think about what is being said.

Of course we want to hunt them down Duh. This thread is not 'which is better to hunt them down or catch them here' - This thread relates to the importance of intelligence.

Originally posted by DrewM

the terrorists must by default BE IN THE USA - not in a cave in Afghanistan. If we can stop them when they ARE IN THE USA - then NO TERRORIST ACTS can ever occur = The War would be WON.


OK, maybe I am jsut an idiot, but what the hell was I supposed to gather from a sttement like this?

The debate was on the relative importance of intelligence and military strength in determining the outcome of the War on Terror, and comparing that to the relative importance of these factors in WWII. What you do with that intelligence is another debate entirely.

I don't think anyone in the U.S. would have a problem with sending in the SEALS or the Delta Force, the Green Berets or whoever when we locate a terrorist camp somewhere.

I would rather see these people arrested if possible because a live prisoner makes a lousy martyr, and they are potential sources of information.

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, maybe I am jsut an idiot, but what the hell was I supposed to gather from a sttement like this?

You were supposed to gather exactly what the statement says

By Default Terrorists that commit terrorist acts are in the USA. You can't fly a plane into the twin towers if you are located in Afghanistan.

But beyond that - the whole statement & thread was never about saying we shouldn't track down terrorists planning to come here - it was examples to illustrate a point. This is the fundamental thing you seem to have trouble grasping.

:rant: :hitout:

Exactly. I can only imagine your frustration as you struggle mentally with such a simple concept.