Political Opinions

spc · By: **spc** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:09 pm

Devil5052 wrote:How does forcing an occupation of Iraq make my world safer?

spc · By: **spc** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:18 pm

coalkirk wrote:Take a listen to this and remember we are all really on the same side. I don't want to get morbid but we are in a fight for our lives and really need to stick together or we will fall apart. If these a-holes can manage to get ahold of some of the many suit case nukes missing from the russian arsenal, they're going off in DC, NY or some other major city wehere they can inflict the most harm. They really mean to kill us. And it started long before George and Dick or even Bill and Al. Remember, we are the infidels. I'm a proud infidel.

http://www.andiesisle.com/Have-You-Forgotten.html

That brings tears to my eyes everytime!

So does this one. I love America

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:21 pm

Richard S. wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: How does forcing an occupation of Iraq make my world safer?

I only think you have to go back two decades to answer that question and look what happened in Afghanistan. Soviets left, US left, World left... Taliban and Al-Queda moved in . If we leave there now, chances are that country will descend into chaos and anarchy much worse that it is now. I mentioned it many posts back, whether it was good or bad decision to go there won't be written for another 20 or 30 years. This is a golden opportunity to get a Democratic government in the heart of the Islamic countries, hopefully one that will breed peace throughout the Middle East in due time. I think it would be a waste to blow it, especially after all the blood that's been shed up until this point.

I whole heartedly agree that our enemy was & is in Afganistan. Every dime we spend & American life that is lost in Iraq takes away from what should be our real focus...Afganistan (where the Taliban is resurfacing) & the tribal areas of Pakistan where Al Quida is flourishing.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:27 pm

coaledsweat wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: How does forcing an occupation of Iraq make my world safer?

I think the Iraqi government still wants us there IIRC. This wasn't a go it alone venture, almost every moderate arab state in the region begged us to go in. Once the war was won, the terrorists showed up because they had been run out of Afganistan. These morons want you, your children and parents dead. If you find that acceptable, you will live (maybe) with the consequences.

I guess it just comes down to a disagreement about our tactics. We all want to make the world safer for Americans. I just think that our efforts in Iraq are acheiving the exact opposite result. I guess that is the real disgreement in this country right now. Tactics......We all share the same goal!

How's this: We are all members of the same football team & we all share the same goal of wanting to march down the field & score a touchdown. After study films of our opponent, some of us feel that a running game will get us into the endzone while others feel strongly that what is needed are a few deep passes.
It just comes down to tactics! (I think what we have to remember is that we are all on the same football team)

Richard S. · By: **Richard S.** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Devil5052 wrote:
I whole heartedly agree that our enemy was & is in Afganistan. Every dime we spend & American life that is lost in Iraq takes away from what should be our real focus...Afganistan (where the Taliban is resurfacing) & the tribal areas of Pakistan where Al Quida is flourishing.

I'd think it's more prominent in Iraq, you only have to look at the multitude of bombings going on. If you leave Iraq its just going to exacerbate a already bad situation. I really think this needs to be taken one step at time and not make any bold moves. We've seen much progress over the last few months, this month isn't so good comparatively but I think bumps in the road are granted. If the situation continues to improve they can continue with a slow draw down.

The American people unfortunately want results and want them now, some things take time and I think we all need to be a little patient.

coaledsweat · By: **coaledsweat** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:48 pm

Devil, you may be right, I don't know. But if Iraq falls, it is the perfect storm for them, right in the middle of the worlds largest supply of oil. That is the WORLDS supply. When thats gone, so is our way of life. It will be a disaster of biblical proportions, just the ticket that OBL is looking for. Do you think they will quit if they get Iraq? Was France and the low countries enough to satisfy Hitler? Were the Japs happy with China, Korea, Indochina? Nope, they both wanted more.

What sort of change in tactics do you recommend? It seems like they are willing to die for their cause which is killing us. It would seem that there is only one countermeasure to that, give them to their god.

We can't run this country on PA's anthracite.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:38 pm

coaledsweat wrote:Devil, you may be right, I don't know. But if Iraq falls, it is the perfect storm for them, right in the middle of the worlds largest supply of oil. That is the WORLDS supply. When thats gone, so is our way of life. It will be a disaster of biblical proportions, just the ticket that OBL is looking for. Do you think they will quit if they get Iraq? Was France and the low countries enough to satisfy Hitler? Were the Japs happy with China, Korea, Indochina? Nope, they both wanted more.

What sort of change in tactics do you recommend? It seems like they are willing to die for their cause which is killing us. It would seem that there is only one countermeasure to that, give them to their god.

We can't run this country on PA's anthracite.

"What sort of change in tactics do you recommend? It seems like they are willing to die for their cause which is killing us. It would seem that there is only one countermeasure to that, give them to their god."

I think we have to start by ending our occupation of a land where we dont speak the language, understand the culture & our mere presence there is seen (rightly or wrongly ) as an attempt to steal their oil & is thus creating a whole new generation of terrorists who cant wait to get their 40 virgins! We have to put our forces in a place where we can defend them better, rebuild our miltary to pre-Iraq war levels, give our soldiers/sailors a well deserved breather from combat & still be close enough to provide a military presence in the Gulf area but not be deliberatley antagonistic.
We need to get more Arab nations involved since it is their neighborhood, after all.

If you have noticed, the violence in Iraq is increasing again this month. GW Bush has tried his way for over 5 years & look where we are.....I think we need to get our forces off the bulls-eye!

When I am elected President in November. I pldege.............Oops...got carried away!

Yanche · By: **Yanche** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:37 pm

coaledsweat wrote:It seems like they are willing to die for their cause which is killing us.

But "us" is much of the western world. Bush's policies have alienated just about all of the countries that are also in the cross hairs. Now it's only us left in Iraq. The war and it's cost in lives and dollars would be more palatable if there were more allies picking up their share. How much closer to the illusive "energy independence" would we be if the war billions were spent on home grown energy instead? This war is a text book example of lack of planning and unanticipated consequences.

coaledsweat · By: **coaledsweat** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:18 pm

Yanche wrote:But "us" is much of the western world.

Exactly, and where are they? I look to history for answers. No one stood up to Hitler when it was the right thing to do and look what he did. These guys aren't as picky as Hitler, they want everyone else dead. They actually are killing a LOT more Muslims than anyone else and find that perfectly acceptable. Pakistan is slipping with 150 nukes right now, thats all these morons need. Its going to take blood and treasure to stay free, always has, always will. You may not be willing to spend it on our future, I however feel if we don't do it now we will have no future. The world has been relatively free of major strife for the last 63 years. It isn't going to last much longer, that is exactly what these morons are up to. The oil is the key to the western world's survival and they know it. People in the USA were shooting each other at the gas pumps in the '70s, what do you think will happen when the oil stops? They won't have to come over here to kill us, we will kill each other at that point.

coaledsweat · By: **coaledsweat** On: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Yanche wrote:This war is a text book example of lack of planning and unanticipated consequences.

They screwed up big time sending the Iraqi Army home in the beginning. We would have been gone 3 years ago if they didn't do that. Al Qaida would not have been the problem in Iraq it has been either.

BugsyR · By: **BugsyR** On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:43 am

Oh so much to comment on oh so little time....LOL

It is my opinion and only my opinion that the majority of Americans today are dwelling on the recent past to the present. 9/11 woke America up and of course our entire government's decisions since then have kept America awake. Look past 9/11. We've been there. We have been there long prior. The only time America found out anything about what was going on over there is every once in a while when the news was slow and the military was tasked to respond to something.
Prior to desert shield desert storm, we were there, the only time America heard of anything going on over there was when the news was slow. We have been there a very long time. We were still there when some were sent to Somalia. We were still there when some were sent to Yugoslavia. We've been there and are still there. Military service members have been dying because of the Arabian Gulf (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) a lot longer than just the past few years. Here's a thought, when I hear about a military member dying in a routine training mission here in the States, in the air, or out on the sea...I can pretty much lay money down and say that they were probably training to get ready for...Southwest Asia. I better include civilians (other than media) in on that list also.

As for our American media. It is my opinion and perception that with everything they report there is underlying political motive. Seeing happy Iraqi civilians is not good news. Seeing angry protesting people makes better news. Especially if they are throwing things and lighting things on fire (especially the stars and stripes). The media has painted us a picture to make us believe all Southwestern Asian people want to kill Americans or just plain hate Americans. Doubt it instead of believe it. Needless to say, I don't much care for our media.

Should we have gone into Iraq? Yes. My opinion is we should have gone in back in 1991 and stayed there and finished off Saddam's regime then. Actually anytime prior to 9/11 would have been good for me.

Then again, it is also my twisted belief that we should have went in and not just occupy but take over. Divide up the country between the allies that participated, largest participant getting the largest slice of the pie, make a 51st state out of it and reap its resources.

Okay, now for a surprise opinion. I personally wish we weren't sent to Iraq this past time. I wanted to see someone else hung from a rope first. I wish that job was complete already...everyday I wait for that piece of news.

One last thing/thought/opinion...The media does not tell us everything...they can't...because they don't know everything.

coaledsweat · By: **coaledsweat** On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:54 am

BugsyR wrote:One last thing/thought/opinion...The media does not tell us everything...they can't...because they don't know everything.

Good post, that last point is critical.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:54 am

BugsyR wrote:Oh so much to comment on oh so little time....LOL

I'm going to try to respond this way (inserting text) & see if it works.(Iusing bold type to make my comments more visible from yours, not to emphasize my points)

It is my opinion and only my opinion that the majority of Americans today are dwelling on the recent past to the present. 9/11 woke America up and of course our entire government's decisions since then have kept America awake. Look past 9/11. We've been there. We have been there long prior. The only time America found out anything about what was going on over there is every once in a while when the news was slow and the military was tasked to respond to something.
Prior to desert shield desert storm, we were there, the only time America heard of anything going on over there was when the news was slow. We have been there a very long time. We were still there when some were sent to Somalia. We were still there when some were sent to Yugoslavia. We've been there and are still there. Military service members have been dying because of the Arabian Gulf (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) a lot longer than just the past few years. Here's a thought, when I hear about a military member dying in a routine training mission here in the States, in the air, or out on the sea...I can pretty much lay money down and say that they were probably training to get ready for...Southwest Asia. I better include civilians (other than media) in on that list also.

I'm not really sure what your point here is???

As for our American media. It is my opinion and perception that with everything they report there is underlying political motive. ( I disagree & believe that evrything they report has an underlying monetary motive.....They just want you to stay tuned & watch the next commercial) Seeing happy Iraqi civilians is not good news. Seeing angry protesting people makes better news. (I agree....As I mentioned in an earlier post, When was the last time you saw a news helicopter circling over a truck & reporting that is wasn't on fire?...That's not news. Happy people wont keep viewers tuned in to their commercials.....bad news will) Especially if they are throwing things and lighting things on fire (especially the stars and stripes). The media has painted us a picture to make us believe all Southwestern Asian people want to kill Americans or just plain hate Americans. Doubt it instead of believe it. Needless to say, I don't much care for our media.

Should we have gone into Iraq? Yes. My opinion is we should have gone in back in 1991 and stayed there and finished off Saddam's regime then. Actually anytime prior to 9/11 would have been good for me. (my opinion is no, but that's water over the dam)

Then again, it is also my twisted belief that we should have went in and not just occupy but take over. Divide up the country between the allies that participated, largest participant getting the largest slice of the pie, make a 51st state out of it and reap its resources. (That sounds appealing but you & I both know that would foster generations of Americans garrisoning a foreign land where we would always be hated,targeted & killed....I don't want my grandsons to have to be there, in garrison)
Okay, now for a surprise opinion. I personally wish we weren't sent to Iraq this past time. I wanted to see someone else hung from a rope first. I wish that job was complete already...everyday I wait for that piece of news.

My sentiments exactly.....OBL is our enemy. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, but had nothing to do with 9/11 & the world is full of bad men. We can't kill them all

One last thing/thought/opinion...The media does not tell us everything...they can't...because they don't know everything.

Agreed but I don't get your point??

spc · By: **spc** On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:25 am

Devil5052 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, but had nothing to do with 9/11

You would agree Hussein had connections with al Qaeda?

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 am

Devil, Hopefully the length of this document won't guard against it being read. (Gotta love that Churchill)
Following are just some excerpts from a speech given to the joint chiefs of staff and the pentagon staff on 2/17/98, just about 10 years ago by B. Clinton regarding Iraq. Keep in mind the context of this speech is pre- 9/11. Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq were he still president after 9/11? That's one for the scholars but if you believe the man beleived what he said in this speech, I think he would have. I'm doing what you asked for which is top supply supporting documentation for the Iraq invasion and I'm doing it with only what I consider liberal sources. There are many others I can supply. Everybody in Washington likes to duck for cover when things don't go well so as not to be smeared with the mess.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.
By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.
In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions

Re: Political Opinions