So you must think that once we retreat, these "regional terrorists", will not try and conduct operations outside the borders of Iraq. No terror training camps and such for attacks abroad. Do you honestly believe this??Turquoise wrote:
Only for regional terror... The kind of terrorists that actually would go to the trouble of flying over here to attack us are mostly in Afghanistan right now. Most terrorists in Iraq just have hate for their rival sects. Shiites kill Sunnis, Sunnis kill Shiites. We just happen to be in the crossfire.lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.
I honestly believe it will take several years for Iraq to settle into some sort of stable government. When we leave (whether it's today or 10 years from now), there WILL be a civil war. When that happens, it's going to be extremely bloody, and both Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to get their hands dirty in it. It will take several years for the conflict to end, and American forces will likely be sitting in Saudi Arabia ready to fend off Iraqi and Iranian forces. Chances are, Iran will wield enough control over Iraq to keep the conflict from actually reaching Saudi Arabian soil (since they don't want to actually fight us). In the end, Iran will probably win this, because they have enough manpower to rule Iraq, and they have the cultural advantage, since they are Shiite like most of the Iraqi people.lowing wrote:
So you must think that once we retreat, these "regional terrorists", will not try and conduct operations outside the borders of Iraq. No terror training camps and such for attacks abroad. Do you honestly believe this??Turquoise wrote:
Only for regional terror... The kind of terrorists that actually would go to the trouble of flying over here to attack us are mostly in Afghanistan right now. Most terrorists in Iraq just have hate for their rival sects. Shiites kill Sunnis, Sunnis kill Shiites. We just happen to be in the crossfire.lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.
All in all, this will probably take several years to come to a close. During that time, it will be too chaotic for any serious terror camps to develop that are capable of sending recruits to America.
It's far more likely that such camps could develop in the remote areas of Afghanistan, because that's what happened not long ago. Afghanistan was the source of terror training for the 9/11 hijackers. This is why we need to focus on Afghanistan instead. Pakistan is also a serious concern.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-31 08:23:15)
I could buy this scenario Turquoise. Good post.Turquoise wrote:
I honestly believe it will take several years for Iraq to settle into some sort of stable government. When we leave (whether it's today or 10 years from now), there WILL be a civil war. When that happens, it's going to be extremely bloody, and both Iran and Saudi Arabia are going to get their hands dirty in it. It will take several years for the conflict to end, and American forces will likely be sitting in Saudi Arabia ready to fend off Iraqi and Iranian forces. Chances are, Iran will wield enough control over Iraq to keep the conflict from actually reaching Saudi Arabian soil (since they don't want to actually fight us). In the end, Iran will probably win this, because they have enough manpower to rule Iraq, and they have the cultural advantage, since they are Shiite like most of the Iraqi people.lowing wrote:
So you must think that once we retreat, these "regional terrorists", will not try and conduct operations outside the borders of Iraq. No terror training camps and such for attacks abroad. Do you honestly believe this??Turquoise wrote:
Only for regional terror... The kind of terrorists that actually would go to the trouble of flying over here to attack us are mostly in Afghanistan right now. Most terrorists in Iraq just have hate for their rival sects. Shiites kill Sunnis, Sunnis kill Shiites. We just happen to be in the crossfire.
All in all, this will probably take several years to come to a close. During that time, it will be too chaotic for any serious terror camps to develop that are capable of sending recruits to America.
It's far more likely that such camps could develop in the remote areas of Afghanistan, because that's what happened not long ago. Afghanistan was the source of terror training for the 9/11 hijackers. This is why we need to focus on Afghanistan instead. Pakistan is also a serious concern.
Thanks lowing...
Again, I'll echo what my karma remark was. It's not that I'm against the War on Terror; I just believe that Iraq is the wrong country for us to focus on. When it comes to terrorism that is a relevant threat to America, I think you'll find more of it in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq. I'd even say that Saudi Arabia has some serious terror cells we need to weed out.
Iraq's terror is more of a threat to itself than anyone else.
While I still believe that the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade are pushing a lot of the agenda in the War on Terror, we might as well counter valid threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than wasting time, money, and lives on Iraq.
Again, I'll echo what my karma remark was. It's not that I'm against the War on Terror; I just believe that Iraq is the wrong country for us to focus on. When it comes to terrorism that is a relevant threat to America, I think you'll find more of it in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq. I'd even say that Saudi Arabia has some serious terror cells we need to weed out.
Iraq's terror is more of a threat to itself than anyone else.
While I still believe that the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade are pushing a lot of the agenda in the War on Terror, we might as well counter valid threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than wasting time, money, and lives on Iraq.
Many people think, myself included that passing ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..Turquoise wrote:
If Bush really supported the troops, he'd overlook a NON-BINDING timetable and vote in favor of giving the troops the funds they need.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Thanks We are all aware of that,
Would they have gotten the bill passed without the pork ? I dont think so it was to close as it is.
Our people are still in harms way as we speak. You would think this one time we could put partisan politics aside and send a clean bill out fast.
I mean if we REALLY supported the troops.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-04-01 15:59:42)
So, you're saying they'd be better off without the money?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Many people think, myself included that passing ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..Turquoise wrote:
If Bush really supported the troops, he'd overlook a NON-BINDING timetable and vote in favor of giving the troops the funds they need.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Thanks We are all aware of that,
Would they have gotten the bill passed without the pork ? I dont think so it was to close as it is.
Our people are still in harms way as we speak. You would think this one time we could put partisan politics aside and send a clean bill out fast.
I mean if we REALLY supported the troops.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
The money with a surrender clause, ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..jonsimon wrote:
So, you're saying they'd be better off without the money?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Many people think, myself included that passing ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..Turquoise wrote:
If Bush really supported the troops, he'd overlook a NON-BINDING timetable and vote in favor of giving the troops the funds they need.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-04-02 08:10:44)
No timetable = war without endHunter/Jumper wrote:
The money with a surrender clause, ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..jonsimon wrote:
So, you're saying they'd be better off without the money?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Many people think, myself included that passing ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
A far worse message than considering retreat is showing that you're too stubborn to fund the troops if a hypothetical timetable is attached to it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
The money with a surrender clause, ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..jonsimon wrote:
So, you're saying they'd be better off without the money?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Many people think, myself included that passing ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
Bush pulled the card of "Democrats don't support the troops", and now, he's getting a taste of his own medicine by the Democrats putting him in a position that tests his own support for them.
I find it funny that when the Democrats talk about their plans for troop withdrawal, their arguement is "it's not a 'cut-and-run' plan, its just redeployment".
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They think pulling out immediately (or within the next year, which is basically the same) is going to accomplish something? They basically just said "Sorry about your loss, but your husband/son/brother/daughter/sister just died for nothing, because we think war is bad." to ALL the families of the troops who died as a result of this war. What pisses me off to no end, and I don't put this solely on Dems (but mostly on them), is the fact that politics has nothing to do with what's best for the country. It's all based around someone's or people's politcal agendas. All they're concerned about is self-betterment. This "timetable" bullshit seems like just another one of the Dems stabs at the President. They oppose him so much, they'll do anything and everything to go against him. It's not about the country, it's abou them having their way, whether it helps the country or hurts it. Take, for example, one of the Dems recently proposed defense spending plans. In it were the usual, ordinary things to be expected in this type of plan. Except for a few items, such as the several billion dollars that was set aside for different types of farmers, such as peanut farms and other somewhat odd types of farms. Where do peanuts play a role in the DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY?? That's a question I'd love to hear an answer to...
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They think pulling out immediately (or within the next year, which is basically the same) is going to accomplish something? They basically just said "Sorry about your loss, but your husband/son/brother/daughter/sister just died for nothing, because we think war is bad." to ALL the families of the troops who died as a result of this war. What pisses me off to no end, and I don't put this solely on Dems (but mostly on them), is the fact that politics has nothing to do with what's best for the country. It's all based around someone's or people's politcal agendas. All they're concerned about is self-betterment. This "timetable" bullshit seems like just another one of the Dems stabs at the President. They oppose him so much, they'll do anything and everything to go against him. It's not about the country, it's abou them having their way, whether it helps the country or hurts it. Take, for example, one of the Dems recently proposed defense spending plans. In it were the usual, ordinary things to be expected in this type of plan. Except for a few items, such as the several billion dollars that was set aside for different types of farmers, such as peanut farms and other somewhat odd types of farms. Where do peanuts play a role in the DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY?? That's a question I'd love to hear an answer to...
It wasn't a " Card " he pulled, he brought to light a fact.Turquoise wrote:
A far worse message than considering retreat is showing that you're too stubborn to fund the troops if a hypothetical timetable is attached to it.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
The money with a surrender clause, ANY TYPE of time table would send the Wrong message to..jonsimon wrote:
So, you're saying they'd be better off without the money?
people who are still in harms way
Our enemy's current, future and possible
The Iraqis who are trying to create a working democracy at great risk to their personal safety.
Thus betraying the troops and wasting their efforts.
Bush pulled the card of "Democrats don't support the troops", and now, he's getting a taste of his own medicine by the Democrats putting him in a position that tests his own support for them.
Why don't The Democrats Unconditionally Support the Troops?
Why would the Democrats wish to Test Bush's support for the Troops?
Would it help the Troops if they make his support wane? no,
you can continually substitute words "Unbinding Resolution" was a contradiction in terms anyway,
But " The hypothetical " is the only situation in which the democratic leadership can function.
So be it.
The War ended when the Iraqi army crumbled up and disbanded,
Their Leader abandoning the Field of battle as well as his people,
Hiding in a whole, unwashed and eating milkyway bars,
In Iraq we now have a discontented minority of a clan "once the ruling elite" setting off bombs that kill and maim many more indigenous people than coalition troops. Criminal activity which they perpetrate Only in an effort to " Make News " in America, as it serves no Military or tactical purpose.
Its also all the Democrats have going for them.
We still need to fund the effort where our troops remain as we did in Japan, Germany, Kosovo, etc.,
We are still in Kosovo by the way, do you have a problem with that also?
The troops needed funding not a " Unbinding, hypothetical, Surrender date.
A date when we will cease our efforts and abandon the people to whom we have pledged our support and aid.
" I doubt France Aided the early Americans with a pullout date in mind.
We had no time table in any other case.
Though California is similar in area and has as many murders, we don't give the police a time table, pull them out or cut their funding. Neither have we pulled out of Washington DC
Congress by passing a funding bill (rife with bribes, political favors and pork legislation) that undermines moral of our troops, Bolsters that of the criminal element that is the enemy, tacticly as well as symbolically Does not support the Troops,
In fact in their very own words The Democrats have in mind
"A slow bleed of the Forces that will force them to abandon their goals just like we did in Vietnam "
So Bush was correct and accurate. He tread heavily yet he spoke the truth.
Did you really think this statement through? Do you want a list of conflicts that ended without a timetable. Can you make a list of wars that ended becuase of them?No timetable = war without end ?
For realitys sake lets move on
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-04-04 16:10:37)