Posted on 09/03/2006 10:03:43 AM PDT by meandog
LOL! Just how is that you address the root cause in a short five years. We cannot fix this. We can only kill it.
Considering that the world has collectively ignored this festering crap hole for decades, simply because of the cost, has allowed it to develop into the proverbial snake that is, and has been striking at everything it can reach since the 70s...
The root cause is a people, a religion and a culture that is designed to be what it is............A warring religious based society that believes it has a destiny to rule the entire world.
It is a danger to the rest of the planet, a festering cancer, a predicable disease, and a candidate for reeducation or genocide by Nuclear Antibiotics.....(Which is their choice, not ours)
Since they do not fear death, then the eventual graduation to a global search and destroy mission is a foregone conclusion in my humble opinion. So how do you concieve of killing over a Billion people? I don't have a clue....
We are not there yet, but we will be soon enough. It is only a matter of time and there is no point in forcing the issue, as it must mature in it's own time.
Bush understands this, and is engaging them as fully as he can with little public support, while at the same time, hoping that it will not become the eventual "kill or be killed" mission that I have predicted here.
He has done all that he can in this time frame, and the rest will come after they hit us again, and perhaps again and again before the greatest nation that has ever been will stop pretending that we don't have a problem and finally define it for what it really is.
The Last Crusade.......
"There's a lot of Shi'ite and Kurdish mass graves who's residents would beg to differ with you on that count.
"
I don't think they were killed trying to remove Saddam.
LOL! Just how is that you address the root cause in a short five years. We cannot fix this. We can only kill it.
Well, there is that. If we're not in the mood for nuclear genocide, there's always plan B.
Oil money is what fuels Islamic extremism, both in the spread of Wahabbism and in the funding of terrorism. So long as oil keeps the Middle East rich, there will be terrorism.
The way to defeat that is to get the industrialized and developing powers off of oil and onto some alternative fuel. If we had launched an alternative fuel Manhattan project right after 9/11, and spent our money on that, we'd be close to the day when we could collapse the economy of the Middle East, and send Islam and Islamic extremism back into the third world shadows for good.
The end of oil will be more devastating to Islam than nuclear weapons. If we really wanted to hurt them, and to end this war, we'd hit them in the supply lines. A bankrupt, barbaric culture from a desert wasteland is no threat to Western civilization. Oil is our Achilles heel, but it's also theirs. The sooner we get ourselves unhooked from it, the sooner we can banish their medieval vision back to the deserts.
I don't think they were killed trying to remove Saddam.
Um, okay. As it turns out, they were. Saddam didn't just happen to dislike Kurds and Shi'ites, you realize. They didn't like him, and rebelled often. Those mass graves are filled because of his heavy handed methods in putting down insurrections. (Some of which we encouraged and then left out to dry. The Shi'ites are particularly bitter about that.)
Of course you would meandog, after all, you're a McCain supporter.
"That's warfighting, not occupation. Forcing a new form of government on people that don't want it isn't a task for people not willing to get their hands dirty. The Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam, but that doesn't mean they still want us there."
Expert: Most Iraqis want U.S. to stay
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8403994/
I hadn't read this column yet (makred it for later reading), nor any of his other colums for the last year or so (just to busy to keep up with it). But over the years, he's had some interesting things to say. A buddy who's a marine laughed himself on the floor while reading about Fred's time in an AMTRAC.
If Fred's accusing the military of the things you say, then we've got another victim of BDS.
Mark
Mark
He SHOULD have gone to that carrier to signal the end of the invasion, but that you have fallen for that MSM BS about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" even after it's been explained a thousand times shows we have a lot to be worried about--even Republicans are buying that spin.
Despite the successful capture of the former Iraqi despot, the president also warned that Saddam's capture "does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East.I chose a PBS story (not a pro-Bush site) and the full article can be found HERE.
The Presient has made numerous reports on the progress of the War. I refer you to the archives on the White House web site, which lists all of his speeches. If you haven't seen the speeches, that is not the President's fault. Those of us who have paid attention know his goals, his strategy, etc. The troops understand what's going on, too. It is only anti-Bush people (who apparently want the war plans sent to them by certified mail) who are unaware of the President's speeches, his goals, and the general plan for Iraq.
>> But that ship has sailed.
> Sailed? It's burning in the harbor, blocking our port.
I meant that the time for acting early to quell the factions is done gone.
> That's warfighting, not occupation. Forcing a new form of government on people that don't want it isn't a task for people not willing to get their hands dirty. The Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam, but that doesn't mean they still want us there.
I agree with you here. Because the war planners didn't get a handle on completely subduing and maintaining the country's peace early on (although our troops executed the mission they were given superbly), we now have an exascerbated situation. We can't cut and run, but we can't stay indefinitely either. I'd like to see a better strategy coming out of our administration than "stay the course". I trust them more than the Democrats, surely, but that's not saying a lot...
> Expert: Most Iraqis want U.S. to stay
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8403994/
Um. the date on this article is from 2005.
Where are you getting this stuff from...?
Never mind, I know it is coming from the demo craps and Libertarians.The Manhattan Project took many months and was focused on a single item of interest. The item was entirely a military one. They had the basic tech, but lacked the refinements needed to build what is now a simple device in relative terms.
What you are asking in regard to energy, is not a military item, but involves the entire private sector from the Auto industry to power plant construction, and from refiners to distributors. It is also a matter of price and availability that affect the entire economy.
There is no possible replacement for gasoline or the other hydrocarbon fuels that will run in existing cars, trucks or power plants that can ever equal the price and availability of gasoline. Their is no replacement that we have somehow overlooked and can develop if we "just put our minds to it".
It just won't happen.
Now, if we were to run out of oil tomorrow, this economy and that of the entire world would grind to a halt and be set back a hundred years and there is not a project or replacement that could equal the price and availability of the hydrocarbon fuels we currently use. Our entire world economy would implode.
Perhaps, someday in the future with a much smaller world population, the alternative energy sources will work. Perhaps someday when all electric power is nuclear, electric cars or elecric/hydraulic engines to replace gas and diesel in our transportation sector will be possible, and that is something we can work toward. but it will not help us with the immediate problem with Iran. Perhaps one day, when space mining is economically feasible, mining ships will scoop free hydrogen from the far reaches of space. But not now.
Now, our hydrogen is bonded in molecules found only in oil, and coal, and manufacturing it is very expensive and slow. Even then, the conversion to hydrogen would be difficult, as it involves much more dangerous equipment then current gasoline requires.
No Manhattan project can find a better and more plentiful fuel than what we currently use, and Hyrdrogen would be next on the list with nuclear being the third choice.
Here are a couple suggestions:
You do not need a Manhattan project to reconvert power plants from natural gas back to coal, which we have plenty of But coal cannot run our cars.
It does not take a Manhattan project to drill for natural gas and oil, which we have in abundance in our own backyard.
Bush was hoping that the invasion of Iraq would have the same effect that the one in Afghanistan had. It might have had, too, if they had stood up an emigre government in the summer of 2003. It seems, however, that the State Department and the CIA would not support such a move.
The last stats I saw show the violence beginning to subside.
The other problem with the Kurds, is the real problem down the road, and I figure that Kurdistan will eventually emerge. This will bring Turkey into the fray.
If anyone thinks for a friggin minute that we will be coming home anytime soon. They are dreaming, and if we do, we will just be going right back.
None of this should be a surprise.
If this guy had read about the Jewish wars, he would know that the Romans did a darned good job of making the Jews eat dirt. Eventually the Jews gave up any political ambitions and became quite pacific members of the empire.
The idea was that a democracy or Western friendly government in Iraq would lead to disruptions in Iran and the beginning of a domino effect in the region.
This is still thought to be possible, no matter the current situation.
The next year will tell the tale, but we certainly do not wish to be embroiled in a civil war, or to be the only thing standing in the way of it.
It is all up to them and it always has been. this is why we have never really occupied them and why the number of forces have been kept to the bare minimum.
It is all up to them and the re-creation or re-awakening of a sense of nationalism that can overcome the differences.
A loon is a loon is a loon
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.