• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pull out and let 'em kill each other...

Goodpasture

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
The battle is not being lost in Iraq. It is being lost in Washington.

Washington will not let our soldiers win the battle. So lets get out. Remember who in Washington is on our side and who isn't.
The problem is that the guys in washington in charge never learned history. This "war" you say "we are losing" started around 600 CE when the first Mohammed died and they couldn't make up their mind who was #2 in charge....and they've been fighting about it ever since.

I am not particularly fond of Muslims in the first place, and I sure don't much care for the Jihadists that are overwhelming Iraq.

If we had spent the $768,000,000,000 that we spent since we declared "Mission Accomplished" on developing alternate energy, and put the $10,000,000,000 a month Iraq is costing us and put it into health care and education and border security, we wouldn't be dealing with immigrants, uneducated kids, a health care crisis, the financial breakdown of families (more families file bankruptcy over medical care in the USA than ALL other reasons combined), and energy. The $2,000,000,000 we are spending a month in Afghanistan could be used to support a couple of carrier groups patroling the middle east.

And to deal with middle eastern governments once we no longer need their oil? How about we tell them to have what ever kind of government they want. Tell them to kill each other or live together or revert to tribal warfare. If one of the governments there develops nukes or becomes a threat to the rest of the world, send a few tomahawks, some cruise missles, and some bombs and shock and awe the hell out of the government. I mean hit it so hard that there is nothing left of the governement and the nuke plants but holes in the ground. Who ever is left alive, let them do what they want for a government. If that new government starts a nuke plant or starts threatening the world, shock and awe it too. Sooner or later, some Saddam type of guy is going to say "If I threaten the world I die, If all I do is persecute my people I live." At which time he is going to be happy persecuting his own people and leave the rest of the world alone.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
If you want to see the mother of all recessions in this country due to high oil prices, go ahead and pull out. If we do there will be a regional conflict ranging from Saudi Arabia (Suni) up to Iran (Shiite). Al-Queda has already declared war on Iran. If we pull out and can't moderate things then the middle east will turn into a mess and we will suffer huge economic problems in our country.

We need to make pulling out an option nobody wants, pulling out needs to include the policy of nuking everything we leave behind.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
backhoeboogie said:
The battle is not being lost in Iraq. It is being lost in Washington.

Washington will not let our soldiers win the battle. So lets get out. Remember who in Washington is on our side and who isn't.
The problem is that the guys in washington in charge never learned history. This "war" you say "we are losing" started around 600 CE when the first Mohammed died and they couldn't make up their mind who was #2 in charge....and they've been fighting about it ever since.

I am not particularly fond of Muslims in the first place, and I sure don't much care for the Jihadists that are overwhelming Iraq.

If we had spent the $768,000,000,000 that we spent since we declared "Mission Accomplished" on developing alternate energy, and put the $10,000,000,000 a month Iraq is costing us and put it into health care and education and border security, we wouldn't be dealing with immigrants, uneducated kids, a health care crisis, the financial breakdown of families (more families file bankruptcy over medical care in the USA than ALL other reasons combined), and energy. The $2,000,000,000 we are spending a month in Afghanistan could be used to support a couple of carrier groups patroling the middle east.

And to deal with middle eastern governments once we no longer need their oil? How about we tell them to have what ever kind of government they want. Tell them to kill each other or live together or revert to tribal warfare. If one of the governments there develops nukes or becomes a threat to the rest of the world, send a few tomahawks, some cruise missles, and some bombs and shock and awe the hell out of the government. I mean hit it so hard that there is nothing left of the governement and the nuke plants but holes in the ground. Who ever is left alive, let them do what they want for a government. If that new government starts a nuke plant or starts threatening the world, shock and awe it too. Sooner or later, some Saddam type of guy is going to say "If I threaten the world I die, If all I do is persecute my people I live." At which time he is going to be happy persecuting his own people and leave the rest of the world alone.



Ah...hem....you're right and this is what Saddam WAS doing before we rush in to save the day for the WRONG country....one that didn't attack us!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Goodpasture said:
backhoeboogie said:
The battle is not being lost in Iraq. It is being lost in Washington.

Washington will not let our soldiers win the battle. So lets get out. Remember who in Washington is on our side and who isn't.
The problem is that the guys in washington in charge never learned history. This "war" you say "we are losing" started around 600 CE when the first Mohammed died and they couldn't make up their mind who was #2 in charge....and they've been fighting about it ever since.

I am not particularly fond of Muslims in the first place, and I sure don't much care for the Jihadists that are overwhelming Iraq.

If we had spent the $768,000,000,000 that we spent since we declared "Mission Accomplished" on developing alternate energy, and put the $10,000,000,000 a month Iraq is costing us and put it into health care and education and border security, we wouldn't be dealing with immigrants, uneducated kids, a health care crisis, the financial breakdown of families (more families file bankruptcy over medical care in the USA than ALL other reasons combined), and energy. The $2,000,000,000 we are spending a month in Afghanistan could be used to support a couple of carrier groups patroling the middle east.

And to deal with middle eastern governments once we no longer need their oil? How about we tell them to have what ever kind of government they want. Tell them to kill each other or live together or revert to tribal warfare. If one of the governments there develops nukes or becomes a threat to the rest of the world, send a few tomahawks, some cruise missles, and some bombs and shock and awe the hell out of the government. I mean hit it so hard that there is nothing left of the governement and the nuke plants but holes in the ground. Who ever is left alive, let them do what they want for a government. If that new government starts a nuke plant or starts threatening the world, shock and awe it too. Sooner or later, some Saddam type of guy is going to say "If I threaten the world I die, If all I do is persecute my people I live." At which time he is going to be happy persecuting his own people and leave the rest of the world alone.

Goodpasture- I have to agree...
Just watched a show on FOX news the other night- that had part of the report on the condition of "the war"... This is not "a war"- its 100's of wars...If I remember right I think they said their was 12-15 factions of Sunnis fighting and killing each other for control, a couple of factions of Shites fighting and killing each other for control- and then both Sunni and Shittie fighting each other in their thousands of year old conflict-- and its the US troops getting caught in the middle of and killed in this Tribal/Civil War....

They said the Iraqui Parliament is all in hiding or moving out of the country--same with many of the key Ministers....

I couldn't remember who it was that said it- but they reminded us of what President Reagan did when the US embassy was attacked in Lebanon-- He pulled out all the troops and said "the US should not be in the middle of civil wars"...

If we pull out I believe their will be a bloodbath of tribal/civil war-- but like you say- it has been going on for thousands of years, and that was the number 1 mistake GW, the politicians, and the military made-- is that we could change it.....

And if the world screams too loud- tell them to send in the French troops...
 

don

Well-known member
there was no civil war in iraq until the us went in and tried to install a puppet government. if the end of american involvement is now to just pull out and let mayhem reign it will be another blow to american credibility as a major power especially in the middle east. bush put the american military in a no-win situation and now all his backers have left him swinging in the wind and done the nation a great disservice with this misadventure. my feeling since day one of this was that bush thought he could avenge his daddy's iraq war and his backers (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, kristol, etc) thought they could easily subdue iraq, secure an oil supply and have a mideast base to replace saudi arabia and ensure israeli secutity. what's happened is complete destabilization and israel is more threatened than ever. ideology won out over brains.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
If we pull out I believe their will be a bloodbath of tribal/civil war.......
If we stay there is a blood bath. When we pull out, any government we install will be destroyed and there will be a blood bath. If we pull out now it will be a blood bath. The only difference is whose blood is being sprayed all over the country. I prefer it to be theirs, not the blood of our kids, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters. Just how much more money are we going to borrow from China just so we can protect the green zone?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Goodpasture said:
Just how much more money are we going to borrow from China just so we can protect the green zone?

Yep-- and they said the "Green Zone" is no longer that safe anymore :roll:

Ben H-- I think we are already rolling into a huge recession/depression--and it is just being covered by the governments juggling of figures- and using only those they want....The governments 2-3% figure is Bullpuckey- and anybody living in the real world can tell that....These 100% higher fuel costs have caused a huge raise in transportation/cost of all products (food, clothes, lumber, etc. etc.).......

Our continuing huge deficit war spending, foreign borrowing, trade deficit- a foolhardy trade policy and a failure years ago to move on an energy policy which has made us too dependent on the rest of the world- which has pretty much set us up for what I think will end up in a major depression.....
A hiccup in China right now could set off stock markets world wide to tumbling....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Pulling out or not pulling out both have great prices to pay. Either way the fight will not go away. We have to find a way to cripple the enemy to the point they loose their resolve or do not have the resources to continue the fight. They way to do this is to fight this war the way we fought the Jap's and Germans not the repeating the way we fought the Vietnamese!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
there was no civil war in iraq until the us went in and tried to install a puppet government. if the end of american involvement is now to just pull out and let mayhem reign it will be another blow to american credibility as a major power especially in the middle east..

Not sure how big the pullout should be or will be-- but one thing we can't do is back out of the Kurdish area and desert those folks that have helped so much...May have to allow them to set up their own country- which will then piss the Turks off (for fear that their own Kurds will rebel and want to do the same).....

It might just be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with them too- and they will be our enemies tomorrow..... :roll:

The rest of those folks haven't shown me they're worth fighting for....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
IMPEACH CHENEY!!! THEN go for BUSH!!!

They're the pricks that got this mess started in the first place.

Place blame where it needs to be placed!
 

don

Well-known member
impeach bush first; let americans see what kind of an operator cheney really is. he might lose his resolve just like during vietnam.
 

don

Well-known member
cheney's so used to operating in the background and throwing someone like scooter to the wolves i'd love to see him made more accountable. the puppetmaster is only effective when he's got puppets. pull back the curtain and you'll expose the deception.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
IMPEACH CHENEY!!! THEN go for BUSH!!!
Where's Monica when you need her...............
rof.gif
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I think we are already rolling into a huge recession/depression--and it is just being covered by the governments juggling of figures- and using only those they want....The governments 2-3% figure is Bullpuckey- and anybody living in the real world can tell that....These 100% higher fuel costs have caused a huge raise in transportation/cost of all products (food, clothes, lumber, etc.etc.).......
OT, I've often questioned the inflation figures put out from Washington, too. I really started getting suspicious of them several years ago when steel posts and wire started getting so high because of the price of steel. After steel started going up, almost everything I had to buy was up from 10-60% and the numbers coming out of Washington showed inflation in the lower single digits.

Like you say about the "real world," I guess the CPI doesn't actually reflect what those of us in the "real world" have to spend our money on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
my feeling since day one of this was that bush thought he could avenge his daddy's iraq war and his backers (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, kristol, etc) thought they could easily subdue iraq, secure an oil supply and have a mideast base to replace saudi arabia and ensure israeli secutity.

don--These are the same folks that are leading the push to do away with Canada (as we know it) and make it all part of a North American Union (NAU)-- with them and their elite globalist buddies running this new entity....
Get total access to Canada's natural resources and Mexicos slave labor- and they can all stuff their pockets more....

Problem is their is only a couple of the current Presidential candidates (Paul and Tancredo) that don't seem to be right in the movement also- both Dems and Repubs....
 

don

Well-known member
the rest of the world isn't that unaware of what's happening in the states. why do you think so many countries are distancing themselves from american foreign policy?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Managing Islam's civil war
Jonathan Kay, National Post
Published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Less than six years after 9/11, the great Clash of Civilizations has fizzled out. It's been replaced by a civil war within a single civilization. Consider these news events from recent weeks, and the pattern becomes clear: - In Pakistan, government troops laid bloody siege to the Red Mosque in the centre of Islamabad, precipitating a string of retaliatory suicide bombings in other parts of the country. On Wednesday, Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, urged revenge against Pakistan's government. ("This crime can only be washed by repentance or blood.")A secret Pakistani interior ministry document recently disclosed by The New York Times warns that Islamist insurgents in the country's northwest tribal areas -- the same ones fuelling the civil war in Afghanistan--may soon threaten Pakistan's central government. - In Gaza, Islamists loyal to Hamas decisively routed Fatah, the once-unrivalled Palestinian movement founded by Yasser Arafat. Fatah-affiliated President Mahmoud Abbas described Hamas as "terrorists" (a word familiar to us, but taboo within Palestinian society -- until now). - In Lebanon, government troops waged war on remnants of the extremist Islamist group Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. The country's governing coalition is also confronting an ongoing political challenge from Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah. - In Iraq, sectarian killings between Shiite and Sunni death squads continue apace. Last week, more than 100 people were killed when a jihadi-driven truck filled with tons of explosives blew up in the town of Amirli, in a region claimed by both Arab and Kurdish Muslims. Meanwhile, American troops are waging war against al-Qaeda-linked death squads, fighting in collaboration with Sunni sheikhs who, until recently, were considered terrorists themselves. - In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-line theocrat who is seeking to summon Shiite Islam's "12th Imam" from his ethereal slumber, is facing mounting criticism from disenchanted citizens amidst a brutal state campaign to enforce Sharia law --including the death by stoning of adulterers. - In Somalia, a grenade attack against soldiers loyal to the Ethiopian-backed interim government prompted troops to open fire on civilians. The army has since closed down Mogadishu's main market and is rooting out the Islamist insurgents that infest it. - In Algeria, which this month hosted the Africa Games, a suicide bomber blew up a refrigerator truck full of explosives outside a military post, killing 10. Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility.

Everywhere, the basic plot is the same: traditional Muslim sheiks and autocrats battling with murderous jihadis for control of Muslim lands. In each case, it is Muslims themselves -- not Western soldiers or politicians -- who will decide the outcome.

Of course, Muslims are still trying to blow up infidels in London and Glasgow, not to mention Tel Aviv, Kashmir and a hundred other places. But with every passing month, Muslim violence becomes more self-directed. By the time Iran gets its Shiite Bomb, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia may be as much at risk as Israel.

In an obvious sense, this is good news for the West. But the trend also means that we are losing our ability to shape events. After 9/11, George W. Bush and his international supporters were swept up in a grand Wilsonian project to revamp the political culture of the Muslim world. But six years later, we're largely back on the sidelines, feebly exhorting our chosen autocrats -- Pervez Musharraf, Mahmoud Abbas, Fouad Siniora, Nouri al-Maliki, King Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah -- to "do more to fight terrorism." Without realizing it, we have gone from realists to democratic utopians back to realists again.

The trend will be hard to reverse. In democracies, voters support wars when they see clear, morally compelling arguments for waging them. That wasn't a problem when the stakes were credibly cast as between good and evil. But the war now is murkier. Most of the Muslim leaders we now are supporting are not democratic folk heroes, but compromised autocrats. Even Afghan President Hamid Karzai, by all accounts a decent fellow, is beholden to drug dealers and local warlords to maintain power.

These men are a lot saner than the Islamists they're fighting, of course. But in the long run, Western voters won't risk the lives of their sons and daughters to prop up a lesser evil fighting one side of an alien, often barbaric civil war.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=9615ee8a-b3dc-4668-9ab0-fa05a0be5769&p=2
 

Latest posts

Top