Bush Unveils "New" Iraq Strategy

DrewDad wrote:

For a "global war" or even a "global engagement" it certainly seems oddly focused in the Middle East....

That's because its the central front. (Is it sinking in yet?)

The biggest terror threat are islamic fundamentalists. Bonus points if you can guess where most of them are centrally located.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The biggest terror threat are islamic fundamentalists. Bonus points if you can guess where most of them are centrally located.

I agree they are. Belgium woman (white European) went over to Iraq and blew herself up...because she (I was going to say got religion) but lets be honest...she became a fanatical muslim on marrying a Morroccan. White English school teacher assistant told her kids she was a soldier for Osama bin Laden on 12th Sept 01.....it goes on and on and on.

But whats at the root of it all? There is no doubt to my mind that Islam is a pretty disgusting religion, and that on the fringes it harbours some very dangerous people, but I really believe what we are witnessing is just action and reaction.

That is we are acting, and they are reacting.

Why are we acting? Because we are hydrocarbon addicts.

In a nutshell this whole business is about who gets to control the oil. If a popular islamic revolution takes place in Saudi..sorry renamed the Islamic Republic of Arabia, and Sheik Osama bin Laden is the first Supreme Leader, setting oil from his domains at $300/barrel, how do we cope with that?

0 Replies

Were it just about the oil, we would subjugate the entire population outside the oil fields, fence it off with landmines and rape the land.

Haven't seen that happen yet.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

In a nutshell this whole business is about who gets to control the oil. If a popular islamic revolution takes place in Saudi..sorry renamed the Islamic Republic of Arabia, and Sheik Osama bin Laden is the first Supreme Leader, setting oil from his domains at $300/barrel, how do we cope with that?

I don't know what you do, but we start drilling in the ANWR.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Were it just about the oil, we would subjugate the entire population outside the oil fields, fence it off with landmines and rape the land.

Haven't seen that happen yet.

Really? And how would you describe what is happening on the ground in Iraq?

0 Replies

You mean how we are building the infrastructure up, repairing pipelines, providing for the safety of all Iraqi's and helping them form a government of democratically elected officials based on an approved constitution?

I would describe that as progress.

How would you describe it?

0 Replies

As a fairy tale . . .

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
He defines the goal as "winning" against terrorism. This will never happen. Terrorists are not a military force that can be defeated as the US beat Saddam's army.

This is a lesson of history that the Bush team stoutly ignores...

How would you approach the problem of terrorism, D'artagnan? Or do you even think it's a problem?

I do think it's a problem--and I think it's a lot worse now that we've been messing around in Iraq for the past few years.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Stevepax wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Nonetheless, giving up the effort to leave Iraq with a stable democracy because a bunch of thugs plant bombs and kidnap and murder civilian hostages would be the wrong thing to do. The fact that the enemy is tough and clever is no reason to give up. Hey, let's send a message to the world that you can make the US abandon any war effort by a campaign of terrorism.

The thugs weren't there before we made it possible for them. Let Iraq sort it out. They have already decided they want an Islamic Theocracy, not a democracy. Read their constitution and see if you can grasp what it says.

Letting Iraq "sort it out" might amount to not protecting a weak democracy from resourceful fascists. The left's fascination with the fact that the insurgents weren't there before we invaded is merely stupid. They weren't there before because the country was ruled by a dictator who could easily have chased them out. He would have simply done something like round up all suspected insurgents, insurgent sympathizers, and their families, and shoot them. Your attempt to use their opposition to the new Iraqi government to prove that their misdeeds are our fault is absurd. Sometimes when you engage an enemy, as we have engaged Islamic terrorists globally, they fight back and are, for a time, more dangerous than had you let them proceed unchecked.

It's not a weak Democracy, it's an Islamic Theocracy which is well deliniated in their constitution thay have penned. Don't you people ever read the documents that are available to you?? This is a religious struggle for control. It's not going to benefit us either way because the Islamists are Iran oriented, not America oriented. They have told us to leave, we should honor that request and get the hell out of town and start spending our time and money on America. It's time to be an American, not a nation builder that is going to end up aligned against us no matter what happens.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Were it just about the oil, we would subjugate the entire population outside the oil fields, fence it off with landmines and rape the land.

Haven't seen that happen yet.
Really? And how would you describe what is happening on the ground in Iraq?

Steve, Makes ya shake your head and wonder what alternative reality they live in, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Bush Unveils????? Unveils What.......New highths in failure. Bush's time is over. He f**cked the entire thing up, Everything. He couldn't have done worse if he tried. Bush is testing the founding fathers idea that no president could passably destroy America in 8 years. They didn't know Bush. The stupidest, most incompetent leader in the history of the planet anywhere ever.

He's the same idiot now he was eight years ago. He's failed at everything he's done his entire life. He's such a failure we can't even blame him anymore. We can only blame ourselves.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
He defines the goal as "winning" against terrorism. This will never happen. Terrorists are not a military force that can be defeated as the US beat Saddam's army.

This is a lesson of history that the Bush team stoutly ignores...

How would you approach the problem of terrorism, D'artagnan? Or do you even think it's a problem?

I do think it's a problem--and I think it's a lot worse now that we've been messing around in Iraq for the past few years.

How would you approach the problem?

0 Replies

At this point? Good question. You're asking me how to solve a problem that our gov't has made worse by giving the terrorists more reason to hate the U.S. and want us out of their region.

How would you handle it, Tico? Are we on the right track?

0 Replies

violence is on the increase in Iraq and has been since the invasion, does Bush address this fact?

0 Replies

Right after Bush's talk on the Iraq war Ed Koch, former mayor of N.Y., made the following opinion on Fox News.

America should pull out of Iraq now unless other European nations, Pakistan (possibly others I don't recall), join in to pull their weight in this nasty war. He suggests that it is these countries who would especially be hurt by America's withdrawal.

Sitting ducks, they would be. (my opinion)

0 Replies

The president of Pakistan would be insane to send troops there. He'd be overthrown in an instant...

0 Replies

Bush today said
"When you're risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation's capital," he told cadets. "I want you to know that, while there may be a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington, D.C., one thing is not in dispute: The American people stand behind you."

Bush's public standing and support for the war have declined. In an AP-Ipsos poll taken in November, 62 percent said they disapproved of his Iraq policy, and his overall job approval rating dropped to 37 percent, the lowest level of his presidency.

0 Replies

How safe would Pakistan be without American soldiers in Iraq? Another thought: Hey, Saddam is right there, waiting. I just don't think we should pull out of Iraq, irregardless whether we should never have gone there with the "shock and awe."

0 Replies

The political situation in Iraq has never been particularly significant in Pakistan, which has only ever been at war with Afghanistan and India. However, since the invasion of Iraq, there has been an effect on public opinion in Pakistan--and it has been negative and anti-American. Pakistan is "safe" whether or not there are American soldiers in Iraq, that's one of the silliest things i've read in these fora in quite a while. Musharef would indeed put his military dictatorship in grave danger from a fundamentalist insurrection if he sent troops to Iraq--D'Art's remark is very much to the point.

0 Replies

sunlover wrote:

How safe would Pakistan be without American soldiers in Iraq? Another thought: Hey, Saddam is right there, waiting. I just don't think we should pull out of Iraq, irregardless whether we should never have gone there with the "shock and awe."

Maybe we could get lucky and let Saddam take back over! He'll take care of the terrorism problem, and he won't align with Iran.

0 Replies

Bush Unveils "New" Iraq Strategy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know