Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/27/2004 7:19:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 7:26:42 AM EST by ZEN]
Our President has offered a lot of reasons for going to Iraq.

Be honest with me here, doesn't it seem to you that he is hiding something?

He is.

Here is what it is:

The real reason we went to Iraq is to gain a foothold in the Middle East. To have a country we can use for a true staging area for other military operations.

Saudi Arabia has far to many restrictions for us.

It is vital that we have a place to stage operations for the security of our country and the world.

Our President understands this, but can't say it publicly because there is such Arab PARANOIA about just such a thing that they would go COMPLETELY NUTS if he announced it publicly.

So he says everything else but the real reason. He could help his election chances by saying the real reason, but he knows that would hurt our countries future.

So he keeps talking about "Democracy for Iraq" and all the other stuff so as not to get the Arabs panties in a bunch.

Once again, he puts principal and strategy ahead of his personal political gain.

I like this man.

I will vote for him.

You should too.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:22:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:24:41 AM EST
I know people who REALLY should understand this, and yet don't.

I simply don't understand how people FAIL to understand this!
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:29:40 AM EST
yah of course thats the reason...

we can now:|
*hit anywhere in Iran easily quickly and repeatedly
*Have an armored column in damscus on 24 hours notice
*grab saudi oil fields when the government falls
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:30:39 AM EST
Agreed! They keep saying "Iran is a greater thread...." Well, that is why we went into Iraq after Afghanistan. Squeeze Iran from two sides when the time comes. The problem with many democrats is that they don't think ahead. They have very narrow pictures of things and most of them are doom and gloom. GW is not a talker, he is a doer, a chess master. And like all chess masters, he thinks ten moves ahead.

Would you rather bring the war to the enemy or wait until they come here and shed our blood en masse? Oh wait, I forgot, liberals think that it is OUR fault when our throats are being sawed off by those animals. We should all just apologize to them for being what we are and beg for mercy.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:32:27 AM EST

I swear, ......... when I was watching the debates and he was trying to answer questions about why we are there and such, you could just see that he was just dying to say:

"Look you idiot (Kerry) we need a military presence in the Middle East, so we can attack Iran or Syria etc and now we have one".

But he can't.

I think if he did, most of the public would understand this and support him.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"


Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:35:06 AM EST
He also has the strategic goal of creating a secular oil rich muslim democracy in the middle east. Turkey is a peripheral player and rather poor in terms of resources. Iraq which had a parlimentary gov`t in the past and a reasonably good education system, could be the role model for post autocratic gov`ts. The majority of our so called pundits haven`t realized this, but you can be sure the saudis, the syrians, and the ayotollahs have. The creation of Mutada Al Sadr as an instrument of Iran is a direct reaction to this, as is the flow of Jihadists through the saudi and syrian borders.

The staying power of the present administration in this situation has been an unwelcome surprise to the Muslim regimes.Clinton would cut and run at the drop of a hat if US casualities were involved, and Bush was initially gun shy. Just as in post war europe and Japan, the locals are beginning to go our way, and the arab on the street in these other nations is watching the outcome with bated breath. As, not if, we succeed in Iraq, we may see another type of domino effect, the spread of democracy and the marginalization of the radicals.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:36:02 AM EST
There is also control of the oil. Kuwait is already dependent on us for defense. One more in our control cant hurt. Who needs Europe for military staging if we have a huge base in Iraq? Its actually a better spot for covering the rest of the world.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:37:23 AM EST
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:43:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
I swear, ......... when I was watching the debates and he was trying to answer questions about why we are there and such, you could just see that he was just dying to say:

"Look you idiot (Kerry) we need a military presence in the Middle East, so we can attack Iran or Syria etc and now we have one".

But he can't.

I think if he did, most of the public would understand this and support him.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"





The problem is that many people think that Bush / Republicans are inherently evil. They truly believe that Bush is a power hungry fascist who, with the support of the corporate world / oil conglomerates, is trying to control the world. If he laid out his strategy like the way you stated, these morons would just say,"see what did I tell you? I told you that Bush and the Republicans are fascists who are out to control the world".
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:43:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



Hmm...Sounds a little too much like the isolationist movement just before Nazi Germany rampaged across Europe and started sinking merchant ships crossing the Atlantic.

Dangerous proposition if you ask me.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:46:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.




That`s the ostrich`s view of the world. The Eagle molds it to his design. I`m sorry was that a Skerry commercial?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:46:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By SwingDancerWannabe:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
I swear, ......... when I was watching the debates and he was trying to answer questions about why we are there and such, you could just see that he was just dying to say:

"Look you idiot (Kerry) we need a military presence in the Middle East, so we can attack Iran or Syria etc and now we have one".

But he can't.

I think if he did, most of the public would understand this and support him.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"





The problem is that many people think that Bush / Republicans are inherently evil. They truly believe that Bush is a power hungry fascist who, with the support of the corporate world / oil conglomerates, is trying to control the world. If he laid out his strategy like the way you stated, these morons would just say,"see what did I tell you? I told you that Bush and the Republicans are fascists who are out to control the world".



I think you're right about the Democrapy party doing that.

But I think if he explained it to the American people in the proper way, they would understand and support it.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:47:29 AM EST
You want to hear something really fucked up?

I know people who understand this and still are voting for Kerry.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:48:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



No, then we can turn into a third world shithole. Which is exactly what would happen if we followed your course of action.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 7:58:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



No, then we can turn into a third world shithole. Which is exactly what would happen if we followed your course of action.



That's how China evolved from being one of the most advanced civilization this world had ever seen into a third world cesspool that they were. Hell, they're not even a "second world" nation despite of the economic boom they've had. That's how badly China sunk in the past 300 years and they did that by shutting themselves from the rest of the world. From a world power down to a gutter country conquered and humiliated by other nations.

Japan, on the other hand, decided to open up and evolve with the rest of the world and became a world power militarily and now a member of the G-7, first world nations group.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:00:29 AM EST
You've got to run faster and faster just to stay in one place. (alice in wonderland)
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:01:31 AM EST
Okay, Zen suppose you are right? But why do what you say? And so what?

Is it because of Israel?

Is it because some countries, like Iraq were going to convert all oil exchanges into Euros? Economic warfare would create a serious prolbem for a shaky dollar.

Could this really be about domestic US policy? Why solve such problems with imperialism and naked agression?


My other thought is that for the neocon plan to succeed (anyone who thinks Bush dreamed up this shit is just kidding themselves--chess master? Oh man is that one lame) they are going to have to pretty much kill every single person in Iraq.

None of what I have witnessed appears to be any kind of grand strategy. Messing with world affairs the way it has been done is pretty much a guarantee of getting unexpected outcomes, so I don't see how anyone can plan some grand strategy around it. Only true believers, filled with hubris could think that it will work. Hubris is the downfall of all emporers.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:02:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 8:03:26 AM EST by thelibertarian]

Originally Posted By SwingDancerWannabe:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



No, then we can turn into a third world shithole. Which is exactly what would happen if we followed your course of action.



That's how China evolved from being one of the most advanced civilization this world had ever seen into a third world cesspool that they were. Hell, they're not even a "second world" nation despite of the economic boom they've had. That's how badly China sunk in the past 300 years and they did that by shutting themselves from the rest of the world. From a world power down to a gutter country conquered and humiliated by other nations.

Japan, on the other hand, decided to open up and evolve with the rest of the world and became a world power militarily and now a member of the G-7, first world nations group.



Um...no. Marxism is to blame for China's recent ills.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:05:54 AM EST
Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was and still is, knew how to control fanatics. If they even looked sideways at him, he'd have them executed and everyone they ever met. People were forbidden to look at Uday's mansion. If caught, they would be executed. That is the kind of force it takes to keep those assholes in line. We are not about to do that. Sooner or later, we will leave. When we do, the extremists will battle the moderates for control of the country. Most likely, the fundementalists will win because they are much more ruthless. We cannot possibly kill them all. That is what it would take to gain full control of the country. The terrorist attacks have continued despite our best efforts to stop them. The terrorists are receiving aid and comfort from the population because they are trying to drive out our forces because we are not muslims. We are an occupation army. The Iraqis that are in the army and national guard are viewed as collaborators.

What ever kind of government they manage to set up, even a democracy, will be combined with Islam.

There is no way they are going to surrender and watch their country be used as a staging ground with which to invade Iran. Even a totally democratic western style government in Iraq could not allow that to happen and maintain control over its people at the same time.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:09:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Okay, Zen suppose you are right? But why do what you say? And so what?

Is it because of Israel?

Is it because some countries, like Iraq were going to convert all oil exchanges into Euros? Economic warfare would create a serious prolbem for a shaky dollar.

Could this really be about domestic US policy? Why solve such problems with imperialism and naked agression?


My other thought is that for the neocon plan to succeed (anyone who thinks Bush dreamed up this shit is just kidding themselves--chess master? Oh man is that one lame) they are going to have to pretty much kill every single person in Iraq.

None of what I have witnessed appears to be any kind of grand strategy. Messing with world affairs the way it has been done is pretty much a guarantee of getting unexpected outcomes, so I don't see how anyone can plan some grand strategy around it. Only true believers, filled with hubris could think that it will work. Hubris is the downfall of all emporers.



No what I am saying is that any nation that stayed stagnant and didn't take a pro-active stance towards furthering the said nations future was overtaken by a more ambitious neighbor. The U.S has got to keep doing more and more worldwide just to maintain it's status as the #1 superpower.

Some nations have tried this and became overextended in their ability to defend their kingdoms. I don't think that isa problem yet, but it is something for citizens to be concerned about.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:10:36 AM EST
Oops did the wrong quote there, but still a good response
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:13:22 AM EST
The real reason for going to Iraq is as an object lesson to N. Korea and Iran.

We don't have plausible reasons to invade either of those countries even though they are probably bigger threats than Iraq was.

Sadam was kind enough to hand us a ready made excuse with all his dicking around with the weapons inspectors.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:15:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Okay, Zen suppose you are right? But why do what you say?



Because he's right and you, as usual, are wrong.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:15:08 AM EST
Read this briefing. It pretty much covers all the bases.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:15:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:

Originally Posted By SwingDancerWannabe:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



No, then we can turn into a third world shithole. Which is exactly what would happen if we followed your course of action.



That's how China evolved from being one of the most advanced civilization this world had ever seen into a third world cesspool that they were. Hell, they're not even a "second world" nation despite of the economic boom they've had. That's how badly China sunk in the past 300 years and they did that by shutting themselves from the rest of the world. From a world power down to a gutter country conquered and humiliated by other nations.

Japan, on the other hand, decided to open up and evolve with the rest of the world and became a world power militarily and now a member of the G-7, first world nations group.



Um...no. Marxism is to blame for China's recent ills.



Never were much into history, were you?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:17:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 8:18:59 AM EST by Planerench]
Islam IS the enemy. Bush could never say that openly nor can he kill them all. The next best possibility is to declare war on the radical Muslims and create a secular government so strong that it will take the Islamofacists twenty years just to regain control of their host countries and another twenty to reconstitute their coversive operations. The 9-11 attacks were the tip of an enormous iceberg. Bush has used our massive collective effort and raised the ambient temperature to 35 degrees and it will take them years just to stop the momentum.

You libertarians will never understand. Think Ostrich. That worked when we were former British colonies but not as the most powerful country on earth. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:18:32 AM EST
Broken record time:

Map+strategic thinking(10-20 years out)

That is all.

CW
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:21:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 8:22:34 AM EST by the]

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



Not sure about that.

9-11 and the philosophical basis (as described by Sayeed Qutb, Bin Laden's Islamist mentor) for the jihad by Radical Islamists refute the viability of this. Everything the West does works as a 'corrupting influence' on Islam and serves as an impediment to esatblishing the new caliphate.

Furthermore, WMD in the hands of terrorists would quickly obviate isolationism, at the cost of many lives. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is.


Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:27:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Planerench:
Islam IS the enemy. Bush could never say that openly nor can he kill them all. The next best possibility is to declare war on the radical Muslims and create a secular government so strong that it will take the Islamofacists twenty years just to regain control of their host countries and another twenty to reconstitute their coversive operations. The 9-11 attacks were the tip of an enormous iceberg. Bush has used our massive collective effort and raised the ambient temperature to 35 degrees and it will take them years just to stop the momentum.

You libertarians will never understand. Think Ostrich. That worked when we were former British colonies but not as the most powerful country on earth. Planerench out.




I am a Libertarian. And I do understand. (that's why I posted the thread)

I am also no supporter of Israel.

This is about the hard reality of the world. We can't have a bunch of looney tone religious nuts controling the worlds oil supply without us looking over their shoulder.

And as far as terrorism, I think we got into this mess because of Israel, but we're in it now and we have to deal with it.


And if that means creating a base in the Middle East, then that's what we must do.

Thank Odin, our president understands this. I know it isn't just his idea. He has some of the finest military minds at his disposal. One of his great talents is using resorces properly and taking good advice.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:53:20 AM EST
Global stability+Energy Resources.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 8:58:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Our President has offered a lot of reasons for going to Iraq.

Be honest with me here, doesn't it seem to you that he is hiding something?

He is.

Here is what it is:

The real reason we went to Iraq is to gain a foothold in the Middle East. To have a country we can use for a true staging area for other military operations.

Saudi Arabia has far to many restrictions for us.

It is vital that we have a place to stage operations for the security of our country and the world.

Our President understands this, but can't say it publicly because there is such Arab PARANOIA about just such a thing that they would go COMPLETELY NUTS if he announced it publicly.

So he says everything else but the real reason. He could help his election chances by saying the real reason, but he knows that would hurt our countries future.

So he keeps talking about "Democracy for Iraq" and all the other stuff so as not to get the Arabs panties in a bunch.

Once again, he puts principal and strategy ahead of his personal political gain.


goddammit what a pantload. You call something 'secret' that ISN'T. You post uninformed ignorant crap about Saudi Arabia - we've already formally declared and removed 99.9% of our personnel from there - where the hell do you think CENTCOM's new regional HQ in Qatar came from?? And the President, and especially via the person of Rumsfeld has said EXACTLY what a swell strategic placement Iraq is for putting all manner of pressure on regional despots / dictators / mullahs.

And you couch it all in such nonsense that I'm surprised you DIDN'T throw in a grassy knoll or two.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:03:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Our President has offered a lot of reasons for going to Iraq.

Be honest with me here, doesn't it seem to you that he is hiding something?

He is.

Here is what it is:

The real reason we went to Iraq is to gain a foothold in the Middle East. To have a country we can use for a true staging area for other military operations.

Saudi Arabia has far to many restrictions for us.

It is vital that we have a place to stage operations for the security of our country and the world.

Our President understands this, but can't say it publicly because there is such Arab PARANOIA about just such a thing that they would go COMPLETELY NUTS if he announced it publicly.

So he says everything else but the real reason. He could help his election chances by saying the real reason, but he knows that would hurt our countries future.

So he keeps talking about "Democracy for Iraq" and all the other stuff so as not to get the Arabs panties in a bunch.

Once again, he puts principal and strategy ahead of his personal political gain.


goddammit what a pantload. You call something 'secret' that ISN'T. You post uninformed ignorant crap about Saudi Arabia - we've already formally declared and removed 99.9% of our personnel from there - where the hell do you think CENTCOM's new regional HQ in Qatar came from?? And the President, and especially via the person of Rumsfeld has said EXACTLY what a swell strategic placement Iraq is for putting all manner of pressure on regional despots / dictators / mullahs.

And you couch it all in such nonsense that I'm surprised you DIDN'T throw in a grassy knoll or two.




You've really got to do something about that sand in your vagina.

(it must be very painful)



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:05:28 AM EST
I think the "peak oil" theory fits nicely with Bush's middle eastern plans. Just my $.02.

Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:12:08 AM EST
Maybe getting away from the topic... If I'm highjacking... just toss me outta the plane
But..... If the US has invaded another country in order to gain a presence in an area an was up front about it would... after a time... months... maybe years if the US remained in control of said area would they get to enjoy a version of the US constitution or is that only for the 50 states to enjoy?
My reasoning is that if the US ever takes over Canada will I get to enjoy the 2nd ammendment or will I continue to suffer under the yoke of oppression I bear now?
I'm not even making sense to myself..... Babble mode >off
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:14:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



Oh come on now!

Even Woodrow Wilson took us to war because eventually, we had to.

When the enemy is at your gates, your first objective is to halt them, and then drive them back, and then annhilate them. Never let the enemy freely to your doorstep. It took us two world wars to figure this out. Destroy the enemy where they are.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:16:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:19:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 9:23:58 AM EST by Planerench]

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
Islam IS the enemy. Bush could never say that openly nor can he kill them all. The next best possibility is to declare war on the radical Muslims and create a secular government so strong that it will take the Islamofacists twenty years just to regain control of their host countries and another twenty to reconstitute their coversive operations. The 9-11 attacks were the tip of an enormous iceberg. Bush has used our massive collective effort and raised the ambient temperature to 35 degrees and it will take them years just to stop the momentum.

You libertarians will never understand. Think Ostrich. That worked when we were former British colonies but not as the most powerful country on earth. Planerench out.




I am a Libertarian. And I do understand. (that's why I posted the thread)

I am also no supporter of Israel.

This is about the hard reality of the world. We can't have a bunch of looney tone religious nuts controling the worlds oil supply without us looking over their shoulder.

And as far as terrorism, I think we got into this mess because of Israel, but we're in it now and we have to deal with it.


And if that means creating a base in the Middle East, then that's what we must do.

Thank Odin, our president understands this. I know it isn't just his idea. He has some of the finest military minds at his disposal. One of his great talents is using resorces properly and taking good advice.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



I apologize for generalization of Libertarians. The Israel hatred has been for over 2000 years and is fact. Israel is as good an ally as we will get in the region and forsaking them is not in our best interest. Planerench out. Edit to add "Imbroglio, is that you?"
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:20:49 AM EST
we cant leave the un just look at what happened when russia skipped a meeting in the 50's just a little thing called the Koren war. We need to keep that seat just to keep the UN in Check. I am not saying we have to do what they say but this is the only way to protect ourselves 100% from them.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:49:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:52:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By Girlieman:
Maybe getting away from the topic... If I'm highjacking... just toss me outta the plane
But..... If the US has invaded another country in order to gain a presence in an area an was up front about it would... after a time... months... maybe years if the US remained in control of said area would they get to enjoy a version of the US constitution or is that only for the 50 states to enjoy?
My reasoning is that if the US ever takes over Canada will I get to enjoy the 2nd ammendment or will I continue to suffer under the yoke of oppression I bear now?
I'm not even making sense to myself..... Babble mode >off



US Federal laws and our constitution apply to all US territories and states. Is her majesty contemplating surrender?



I'll meet you at the Rainbow Bridge... or would you prefer to invade though the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel?
Either way I wanna see a link for Ontario on Packing.org ASAP
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 9:56:00 AM EST
I am an isolationist. That is true. I am not for ignoring the world's problems or its attitude toward us. I advocate getting out of the U.N. because it is ineffective. Without us, it has no teeth. It lacks the will to enforce its edicts and its leadership is corrupt. Nations that defy its orders do so without retribution. See Iran and North Korea. The only time anything happens is when another nation acts on its own or it is politically convenient. See Kosovo. The United States without the U.N. is like a bear without tennis shoes.

As far as fighting our enemies in foreign lands, we could keep terrorists out a lot easier if all our military were here to protect our shores. We are not depriving the terrorists of a base of operations because we cannot possibly occupy all the areas that they can. Our oil usage might even drop below what we produce if we didn't have to provide fuel for our military all over the world.

Woodrow Wilson? He gave into the popular opinion instead of an apology and reparations from Germany. If we had not entered WWI, Germany and Austria may have occupied France and Belgium for awhile. Big deal. Germany may have occupied Russia. That would certainly have saved us a big headache. As it was, a defeated Germany was further raped by France and that made it ripe for take over by the Nazis. Hence WWII.

Back to Iraq. As many people as we kill and as many of our people as we lose, we will never rid that country of muslims and that is the primary and only problem. The more we involve ourselves in their affairs, the more idiots come out of the woodwork with a bomb in one hand and a qur'an in the other.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:06:45 AM EST
That staging area is on the border of Iran, another member of the axis of evil, too.

It gets us out of Saudi Arabia. Our presence there is one of the main motovators for Bin Laden. According to Bin Laden's own words, getting the infidels in the holy land is one reason he's a terrorist.

Don't underestimate the truth in what Bush is saying. A free Iraq puts all those other mid-east despots on notice - your turn is coming.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 10:18:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:20:42 AM EST
You're forgetting the fact that saddam was also about to start accepting Euros as currency to buy oil. Currently you have to hav USD to buy oil. People buy USD to buy oil and it drives up demand for, and subsequently, the value of our dollar.

For Saddam to set a precedent and suddenly start taking Euros for oil, would have damaged the dollar and put us in a severe recession.


So this plus Iraq will be our forward operating base to kill terrorists in Iran, Syria, Jordan and anyone else who wants to mix it up from now on.

Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:23:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By arbob:
He also has the strategic goal of creating a secular oil rich muslim democracy in the middle east. Turkey is a peripheral player and rather poor in terms of resources. Iraq which had a parlimentary gov`t in the past and a reasonably good education system, could be the role model for post autocratic gov`ts. The majority of our so called pundits haven`t realized this, but you can be sure the saudis, the syrians, and the ayotollahs have. The creation of Mutada Al Sadr as an instrument of Iran is a direct reaction to this, as is the flow of Jihadists through the saudi and syrian borders.

The staying power of the present administration in this situation has been an unwelcome surprise to the Muslim regimes.Clinton would cut and run at the drop of a hat if US casualities were involved, and Bush was initially gun shy. Just as in post war europe and Japan, the locals are beginning to go our way, and the arab on the street in these other nations is watching the outcome with bated breath. As, not if, we succeed in Iraq, we may see another type of domino effect, the spread of democracy and the marginalization of the radicals.



+911,000

This is EXACTLY what the strategy is...

Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:25:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I disagree. We do not need a presence over there. We need to leave and then close our borders. After that we can withdraw from Nafta and the United Nations. Then we can run our country as we see fit.



Straight into THE GROUND!

You fool, we're too big to 'turtle up & hide'...

Also, folks like you have gotten thousands of American servicemen killed, as we 'hid behind our borders' while the world burned in the 1930s

Fortunately, after WWII, we took a 'never again' approach... Just when they started to reconsider this, WHAM, we get hit by the current terrorisim wave...

Ought to tell ya somethin, right?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:28:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/27/2004 11:41:16 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Girlieman:
Maybe getting away from the topic... If I'm highjacking... just toss me outta the plane
But..... If the US has invaded another country in order to gain a presence in an area an was up front about it would... after a time... months... maybe years if the US remained in control of said area would they get to enjoy a version of the US constitution or is that only for the 50 states to enjoy?
My reasoning is that if the US ever takes over Canada will I get to enjoy the 2nd ammendment or will I continue to suffer under the yoke of oppression I bear now?
I'm not even making sense to myself..... Babble mode >off



Well, in many areas we've brought the Constitution with us...

In others like Japan & Germany we cut them off at the knees, forbidding small arms so as to perminantly cripple their societies... Seems to have worked, to a point...

Oh yeah, if you guys do ever decide to join us, PLEASE LEAVE THE FRENCHIES BEHIND!!!!
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:38:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
I am an isolationist. That is true. I am not for ignoring the world's problems or its attitude toward us. I advocate getting out of the U.N. because it is ineffective. Without us, it has no teeth. It lacks the will to enforce its edicts and its leadership is corrupt. Nations that defy its orders do so without retribution. See Iran and North Korea. The only time anything happens is when another nation acts on its own or it is politically convenient. See Kosovo. The United States without the U.N. is like a bear without tennis shoes.

As far as fighting our enemies in foreign lands, we could keep terrorists out a lot easier if all our military were here to protect our shores. We are not depriving the terrorists of a base of operations because we cannot possibly occupy all the areas that they can. Our oil usage might even drop below what we produce if we didn't have to provide fuel for our military all over the world.

Woodrow Wilson? He gave into the popular opinion instead of an apology and reparations from Germany. If we had not entered WWI, Germany and Austria may have occupied France and Belgium for awhile. Big deal. Germany may have occupied Russia. That would certainly have saved us a big headache. As it was, a defeated Germany was further raped by France and that made it ripe for take over by the Nazis. Hence WWII.

Back to Iraq. As many people as we kill and as many of our people as we lose, we will never rid that country of muslims and that is the primary and only problem. The more we involve ourselves in their affairs, the more idiots come out of the woodwork with a bomb in one hand and a qur'an in the other.



More revisionist ignorance...

While Versailles was a mistake (and IIRC, one we never ratified), WWI was not...

WWII would have happened for us with or without Nazis, as we were attacked - if you remember - by JAPAN, who viewed us as an obstacle to their imperial dreams while we sat behind our borders with a smug concieted 'they wouldn't dare challenge us' attitude...

Further, without the Nazis - reprehensible as they were - Stalin would have been the 'Enemy in Europe' as a counterpart to Japan.

Finally, in Iraq, your ignorance of the situation is the same as all of the Islam-fixated armchair commandos here... Iraq was probably the least religeously driven Arab state prior to Saddam, and definately the most western & advanced (note that Iran is not an Arab nation - they are Persians (think almost European, ancestrally)). The vast majority do not ascribe to the faux-holy-war, which is why the insurgency is importing so many foreign fighters. Al Sadr's movement is nothing more than an attempt at coup de'etat - he is in it for personal power (wants to be 'Supreme Leader of Iraq') not religeous reasons...

Finally, defensive action in war is a for-sure loss - unless you go on the offensive you will eventually be worn down and destroyed... No nation has ever won a war by hiding behind prepared defenses...

We cannot seal our borders, we cannot stop a determined enemy from attacking us here 100% of the time. We *CAN* engage them at the source and try to re-structure the Middle East to remove their power base by spreading democracy & capitalisim. And that is what we MUST do...

Further, we cannot mount successful defensive operations without international pre-positioned forces. We just can't get the equipment in place fast enough, as our military fights a low-manpower, high-tech sort of war that requires shiploads of tanks, large prepared airbases, etc...

Isolationisim does not work. It has NEVER worked, it only makes you beholden to the rest of the world...
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:55:01 AM EST
The day we invaded iraq it was clear as to the unspoken reason.

We have Afgan and now Iraq, There's only one country between them.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 11:58:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Our President has offered a lot of reasons for going to Iraq.

Be honest with me here, doesn't it seem to you that he is hiding something?

He is.

Here is what it is:

The real reason we went to Iraq is to gain a foothold in the Middle East. To have a country we can use for a true staging area for other military operations.

Saudi Arabia has far to many restrictions for us.

It is vital that we have a place to stage operations for the security of our country and the world.

Our President understands this, but can't say it publicly because there is such Arab PARANOIA about just such a thing that they would go COMPLETELY NUTS if he announced it publicly.

So he says everything else but the real reason. He could help his election chances by saying the real reason, but he knows that would hurt our countries future.

So he keeps talking about "Democracy for Iraq" and all the other stuff so as not to get the Arabs panties in a bunch.

Once again, he puts principal and strategy ahead of his personal political gain.

I like this man.

I will vote for him.

You should too.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



Excuse me, then what was Afghanistan ???

How many foot holds do we need.

Aircraft carriers would have been better and a long term investment.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top