Jump to content

Lets compare War Time Service


Recommended Posts

Funny, I've posted an nauseum on this very subject (Iraq, terror, middle east, etc-) and have never once had anyone want to engage on the subject. Where were you guys then?

 

Yes, Iraq and "the War on Terror" are quite closely related. One has to look at things in something other than two dimensions. This is a multilayered four dimensional issue. Yes, how to go about handling it is very unpopular, but the best strategies should not and can not rely on their popularity. Yes, it involves protecting allies, yes, it involves protecting oil-as that is them lifeblood of most of the middle east-who controls it controls the show. I've written white papers on this. Hard to get into it all in one post, but I don't think very many people understand the fragility of many of the moderate middle eastern regimes. Without a strong interference from an outside source, fundamental islam can not be discounted to take over the area within the next five to ten years. Once that occurs, the fledgling pan-islamic state these people crave will control not only a majority of the world's oils supplies, but a strategic geographical cross roads disputed for most of history. The goal of the terrorists we are at issue with is not necessarily to "destroy our way of life". It is to remove western influence, especially American influence from the middle east-the intent being the creation of the pan-Islamic machine. At that point, they truly become a prime time world player-and the results will not be hugs and kisses. Couple this with nuclear tipped ICBMs and one can see the problem.

 

The Soviet Union had been a stabilizing influence in the middle east for many years. The Soviet Union is gone. There has been a vacuum as far as an outside influence over this area since. It has been a problem brewing for years-9/11 brought it to a head as far as our interplay. Iraq may or may not have been hooked up with Al Queda, but if they weren't AQ was about the ONLY ones they weren't hooked up with. They were very involved with other organizations that are affiliated closely with many of the AQ branches. The animosity towards the US indeed has a lot to do with our support of israel, but it's roots are historic and are generally against the West at large. The wahabi influence is particularly disconcerting when you look up their mandates and beliefs.

 

If nationalism is the issue, why are they blowing up their own infrastructure and their own people? Think about it. Yes, there are plenty who are shooting at us because they don't want us there. But there is a much more organized and evil influence at work trying to keep anything that would give anything other than a fundamentalist regime from gaining a foothold.

 

As for the war on terror, do not confuse hunting down Bin Laden as success. That has become a nice to have to feel better more than an operational issue. Of course we would like to have him. the proper amount of resources are working that issue-along with strong allied support from some of the nations you swear we have none from. The actual war on terror, should you want to call it that is not a military intensive mission per se. Yes, there are substantial forces engaged in that venue-actually globally. Much of the WOT is much more like a criminal investigation and operation against organized crime, or drug smuggling. Actually, there are a lot of ties between the three and much success has been achieved by ourselves and our allies (including most of the middle east, France, Russia, Germany, etc.). In short-having a couple hundred thousand regular troops running willy nilly through the mountains is not the proper approach.

 

In short, this is far from a simple issue. Everything is intertwined. We, unfortunately like to take things in small pieces and separate them from each other. Problem is you can't.

 

I will say that becoming less aggressive, and pulling our forces out and going back to "diplomacy" is playing right into their hands. This is precisely why the "bad guys" look forward to and want a Kerry presidency. Rightly or wrongly they believe that due to the public pressures, he would withdraw most of the forces from the theater and try his luck at the negotiating tables. Who do you negotiate with? What is diplomacy? Diplomacy is negotiating compromise. These people will not compromise. Might want you to think that-but-no. Right now, having a large US presence in Iraq, and in the waters nearby as well as the other countries we are based in is going a much longer way to keeping Iran and Syria under wraps than you might think.

 

Sorry for the length, but this actually deserves several pages.

12024[/snapback]

 

I agreed with just about everything you said untill the second to last paragraph, then you lost me. First, Kerry has said he will pull some forces out but they would be substituted with more international forces with idea of creating a true national strategy in the region. He never said we'd have anything close to an immediate withdrawal, nothing close. Kerry has said over and over that a complete withdrawal will take years and years.

 

Second, but more important: you haven't explained how the current policy is working and how it will achieve many of the things outlined in the first few paragraphs. It seems quite inconceivable to many people, including ME experts, who cannot see how the current strategy will weaken fundamentalism in the region. Just the opposite has continued to happen since the Iraq invasion.

 

Moreover, there appears to be NO diplomacy at all. What is the plan? No one appears to be working together, no vision, no idea of what to do next. Explain how Bush's policies are working and what he plans to do next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Someday you guys are going to realize that Bush didn't lie to start the war. Unless you think Kerry lied too given that he agreed to the war based on the same information our President had.

 

I keep seeing the people in NYC with signs that say "Bush Lied" and think to myself; there may just come a day when people can objectively think for themselves without taking for granted the first thing they hear from someone less intelligent than them.

 

And people wonder why we call them Pollys.

12350[/snapback]

 

Someday you'll have to come up with another response to people who disagree with you rather than parroting the same old: "they are all stupid pollys. "

 

The irony is that your posta read like RNC talking points or the Rush Report for his dittoheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooooh.  The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.  I remember when I was six, and found that uproariously creative, too...

12133[/snapback]

Sounds like DC has his panty's in a wad,

that dorkboy is the wad defense,

liberal,,conservative what is he, oh we wonder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RabidBillsFanVT

12114[/snapback]

 

*he he he , you have rally made my day. I have not even needed to turn on my XM comedy channel today...just read a few of your posts.

 

 

Why the insult?

 

*Come on, you said "Our long-standing reputation in accomplishing many feats of world peace" are you talking about in the middle east? Please...you must be joking.

 

 

No, I'm not joking. It's not about just the Middle East, it was about our whole reputation. We have used our influence and pressures MANY times to foster peace throughout the world, and we have been respected for it, outside of the normal circles, i.e. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... NOW our reputation has suffered greatly by going through with the Iraqi war, and it's not about cowering to the opinion of France, Germany, etc... it is about having the intelligence to realize what you are getting into, and building REAL understanding. You can't build it through concocting WMD stories and bullying through to war. That makes us look imperialist, something that WE CANNOT AFFORD to look like. I AM NOT saying we are; it just LOOKS that way.

 

*There will never be peace in the middle east until every jew on earth is dead, and everyone who talks to them, supports them, and even thinks that they have a right to walk the earth will meet the same fate that the wacked out islamic fundamentalists has in store for the jews.

 

 

You are mistaken. Britain and the UN caused the whole problem when they plopped down a country in the middle of the Arab world in 1948. Since then, people have fought to regain what was once their land... this battle has been going on for centuries. I think you are under the misconception that radicals are just Arabs... well, there are MANY fundamental Zionists who would rather go down dying than give up one bit of land. They can't seem to get it through their heads that they will always be under attack if they don't find a compromise. As long as we aid them in that stubbornness, they will always be attacked and their army will always attack Palestinians. It's not a JEWISH problem; it's a land and human rights problem... Israel doesn't respect their land OR their human rights, and Palestinians don't respect the use of non-violence to achieve its ends.

 

*Do you understand this simple and basic point. These people are insane, and they are not based in anything that you, me or any other normal air breathing human being would consider normal.

 

 

We called Native Americans 'savages' and 'cutthroats' and 'wicked', but were they REALLY? They were being wronged, and they fought back. It's a natual human condition.

 

*One more time .....All jews dead= peace in the middle east. This is the only way that the fundamentalists will ever stop the terrorism that they have exported to every corner of the globe.

 

 

I disagree. There hasn't been ONE war between Egypt and Israel since the peace brokered between Sadat and Begin. It CAN be done, but until Israel changes its tune and does what is right, it will continue this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rcow...Did not John Kerry vote for the war in Iraq? If he did (he did) Wasn't it the same information given to the President (it was).  Not calling you anything...except...not being fair.

12534[/snapback]

 

What post are you addressing? A bit of a non sequitur but I'll reply. Yes, he did and it's pretty clear what he said:

 

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html]Kerry speech - Oct 2002[/url]

 

Nothing "unfair" about what I said. Now at least tell me to what you are referring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
×
×
  • Create New...