Posted on 09/14/2007 9:02:25 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Yes, he is a true believer. And he’s a true believer we should put out of our misery.
Unnecessary huh? Next thing you are going to say is it was all about oil as well.
I guess some people just can’t see what’s going on until it comes and bites them in the ass.
It’s only a matter of time before Canada gets a taste of reality. I really wonder how they are going to take it, besides blaming the USA for all their problems.
That’s pretty much Iran’s goal. They want control over the whole patch, and they mean to take it, by force or politically. If they get a nuke, they’ll have it politically.
Heck, in the business world, Iranian shias already own half of Dubai.
I agree. Look I’m tired, but the following loosely describes my hopes for Iran short term.
I don’t see the need for us to take over Iran like we have Iraq. Just bump off a few at the top, and more moderate people would have a chance of taking over.
Granted we might need to take out a considerable portion of the current leadership. We’d also have to have a group standing in the wings. Then we’d have to make sure they were supported. Destroying the whole military would probably be a mistake in this instance. If they showed loyalty to the new leaders, they could have a pass as far as I am concerned. Otherwise they should know they’re next to become vapor trails.
At the same time Iraq’s nuclear facilities should become instant history.
This could turn Iran around in a matter of a few months. If the military went along, the Mullahs would be back in France until the next ass like Carter came along.
I didn’t realize that.
Not baloney. Is's as close to the heart of the Islamists as you can get. The Islamists attacked the heart of western culture by an attack on NYC. We reciprocated. It was the best approach as decided by our elected leaders. What would have been the results of any other action or non action?
On the other hand our non elected opposition during the last 6 years managed to degrade our reputation worldwide, and have gotten them to hate America as much as they do.
This administration has been thoroughly incompetent one way or another --
Quite the opposite. So far we have been successful. Only 135,000 troops and for openers, we control Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and managed to involve the UN in Lebanon. And I might add, no major attacks in the US, and great steaming econmy
IMHO, no mistakes were made. At each step of the way, action was taken based on the 'facts' at the time. W and Rummy and our military were/are brave and brilliant, considering all the turns that a wars take.
If Gore were doing exactly the same thing (unlikely), with the party machine always behind him, the country would be blushing with pride.
I'm not blushing but I'm secure in the knowledge that we're on the defensive, and moving forward. Sad that the Democrats are willing to demonize W, the country and the troops, just to gain control of the golden goose.
It's sad that you fall for all the MSM BS!
It is fairly safe to say that Iran has been doing more then dreaming.
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
Rather then cling to your ignorant, rather bigoted, silly dogmas. HOW about you try actually finally learning some things about Iraq? Don’t you think after 4 years of repeating endlessly the same ignorant rants, you might finally try getting a clue?
It always was. As anyone who has ever looked at a map of the ME, and bothered to THINK about the US Strategic position in Spring 2002 knows full well.
The position of the Neo Isolationist Dincons on Iraq has NOTHING to do with any sort of thoughtful consideration of the post 09-11 world on their part but resides wholly in their pathetic childish desires to cling to their comfortable 09-10 world views.
That world is dead. It died 09-11-01. Dincons need to learn to live with it and give up this habitual denial of reality they are clinging to.
That has been the net result although surely not intentional
That's not what I said. I presented two different scenarios -- one of which has to be true (and based on your previous comment I suspect you'd select #2). Either (1) the war was unnecessary, or (2) the administration has been derelict in its duty to defend this country, by waging a half-@ssed war in a Third World sh!t-hole to prop up a dysfunctional Islamic government.
It’s only a matter of time before Canada gets a taste of reality. I really wonder how they are going to take it, besides blaming the USA for all their problems.
I don't know what this comment means. I am not a Canadian and have never been one, if that's what you're getting at.
Well, OK -- but "what to do afterwards" is part of the effort and should have been part of the plan. And incompetence in deciding "what to do afterwards" is no different than incompetence in launching an invasion.
bookmark post 49.
Best strategic explanation ever.
This war has been going on for centuries before we were drawn into it by many attacks before 9/11. It will continue for many, many years to come, and America will be involved because we are one of two major targets.
Well thought out and well written post. I agree.
It'll be conducted exclusively by the Navy and Air Force. ...and perhaps some spec ops. And it'll all be over before the liberal media can shriek "quagmire!"
Of course it's in the best interest of both the ant-war libs on the left and the isolationists on the right to convince the electorate that we're looking at Iraq part 2. ...iow, to lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.