Islamic deja vu (Dems repeat their Vietnam betrayal in Iraq/Iran)

The Washington Times ^ | May 23, 2007 | Arnaud de Borchgrave

[MNJohnnie]

Same response. Your feelings are not facts. Your ignorance about Iraq is simply inexcusable. Try learning some things instead of simply screaming your emotion based dogmas over and over and over.

Start here. The bulk of the fighting in the War on Terror is Muslims killing terrorists for us. YOU Neo Isolationist idiots would run away from our allies driving them into our the hands of our enemies. That would be a truly stupid strategy on our part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

Then instead of clining to your ignorance in the face of all factual reality, FINALLY learn something about Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840179/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840124/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839986/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839944/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839651/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838632/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838583/posts

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

[TeenagedConservative]

So what you’re essentially arguing, if I may try to sum up your long post, is that the Islamic Fascists will eventually try to kill us again anyway, and that Iraq is strategically the best place to kill them.

If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria? Or maybe the country that supplied the majority of the hijackers, Saudi Arabia? And if it must be Iraq, why engage in a historically unwinnable occupation which the DoD predicted would start a civil war?

And even if we grant ALL that, you can’t possible believe that using this current strategy of soft war we can quell the civil war.

[MNJohnnie]

Nice you have feelings. Too bad they are based on complete ignorance of all factual reality when it comes to Iraq. Instead of simply screaming your ignorant dogmas louder, try LEARNING something about Iraq finally.

[Swiss]

How many soldiers and other military have you talked to that has served in Iraq?

[TeenagedConservative]

My brother, for starters. Two of his friends, two guys from church, and a guy in my fencing class.

[MNJohnnie]

One other point for you to chew on.

Saddam’s Iraq started two regional wars, used WMDS against Iran as well as his own people, was an open sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups, was under UN Sanction as well as an opened ended us Military “Containment” mission.

To suggest that Iraq was “stable” under Saddam is pure idiocy that demonstrated a complete ignorance of all regional history in regards to Iraq prior to the 2003 Liberation.

[TeenagedConservative]

Yes, they used WMDs against Iran and their own people. I seem to remember our government cheerleading that conflict and helping both sides. So we invade a country because they use the weapons we supply them with against an enemy we assist them to fight? Makes perfect sense.

[Swiss]

Well as long as they are agreeing with you I am not going to argue.

Myself I have about 20 friends over there right now and about 60 who has been. When they start sounding like you then I won’t support the war. BUT the most passionate supporters of the war I know are my friends and associates who have been there, are there, or like myself waiting for the call to go there.

[TeenagedConservative]

I’m not denying that the war has worthy goals and worthy people trying to achieve those goals. I would be elated if somehow “Iraqis” (a country artificially thrown together by the Brits) experienced an awakening and adopted a secular, peaceful society.

[dynoman]

MNJohnnie,

How has it happened that opinion is considered to be interchangeable with truth by so many people? It’s an epidemic!

Add to it an increasingly common grotesquely inflated self-righteousness and you have a hopeless catch-22 situation.

You will never see how warped your thinking is because you always think you are right.

WHERE is this psychological warpage coming from??

[dynoman]

"If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria?"

There is more hope of the Iraqis emerging out of the Middle East's Islamic imposed dark Ages than a country ruled by full blown jihadist government, like Iran or Syria.

Search Iyad Jamal Al-Din (an Iraiq PM) on memritv.com to see how this is working in Iraq.

The clip #1285 - Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "We Are Like a Bird Born in a Cage - America Broke the Cage Open, but the Bird Does Not Know How to Fly" is a very good one.

Here are some Iyad Jamal Al-Din quotes;

"We do not hold ourselves accountable. This is why America came to demand that the Arabs be accountable. We must have more self-confidence and be accountable before others hold us accountable. we must discipline ourselves before the Americans and English discipline us. We must maintain human rights, which we have neglected for 1,300 or 1,400 years, to this day - until the arrival of the Americans, the Christians, the English, the Zionists, or the Crusaders - call them what you will. They came to teach you, the followers of Muhammad, how to respect human rights." "If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria?"

There is more hope of the Iraqis emerging out of the Middle East's Islamic imposed dark Ages than a country ruled by full blown jihadist government, like Iran or Syria.

Search Iyad Jamal Al-Din (an Iraiq PM) on memritv.com to see how this is working in Iraq.

The clip #1285 - Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "We Are Like a Bird Born in a Cage - America Broke the Cage Open, but the Bird Does Not Know How to Fly" is a very good one.

Here are some Iyad Jamal Al-Din quotes;

"We do not hold ourselves accountable. This is why America came to demand that the Arabs be accountable. We must have more self-confidence and be accountable before others hold us accountable. we must discipline ourselves before the Americans and English discipline us. We must maintain human rights, which we have neglected for 1,300 or 1,400 years, to this day - until the arrival of the Americans, the Christians, the English, the Zionists, or the Crusaders - call them what you will. They came to teach you, the followers of Muhammad, how to respect human rights." "What is happening in Iraq is a real massacre and a real war between truth and falsehood, between a democratic government which relies on the public, and the remnants of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman tyranny. Iraq will be a cemetery for them and for those behind them."

Iyad Jamal Al-Din understands, is engaged in the public dabate in Iraq, and if that public debate continues guys like Iyad Jamal Al-Din will win it.

That is why we must stay, so the public political debate can continue.

"What is happening in Iraq is a real massacre and a real war between truth and falsehood, between a democratic government which relies on the public, and the remnants of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman tyranny. Iraq will be a cemetery for them and for those behind them."

Iyad Jamal Al-Din understands, is engaged in the public dabate in Iraq, and if that public debate continues guys like Iyad Jamal Al-Din will win it.

That is why we must stay, so the public political debate can continue.

[dynoman]

Yes, it is important enough to be said twice.

[dynoman]

In fact it's important enough to clean up and repost it a third time;

"If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria?"

There is more hope of the Iraqis emerging out of the Middle East's Islamic imposed dark Ages than a country ruled by full blown jihadist government, like Iran or Syria.

Search Iyad Jamal Al-Din (an Iraiq PM) on memritv.com to see how this is working in Iraq.

The clip #1285 - Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "We Are Like a Bird Born in a Cage - America Broke the Cage Open, but the Bird Does Not Know How to Fly" is a very good one.

Here are some Iyad Jamal Al-Din quotes;

"We do not hold ourselves accountable. This is why America came to demand that the Arabs be accountable. We must have more self-confidence and be accountable before others hold us accountable. we must discipline ourselves before the Americans and English discipline us. We must maintain human rights, which we have neglected for 1,300 or 1,400 years, to this day - until the arrival of the Americans, the Christians, the English, the Zionists, or the Crusaders - call them what you will. They came to teach you, the followers of Muhammad, how to respect human rights."

"What is happening in Iraq is a real massacre and a real war between truth and falsehood, between a democratic government which relies on the public, and the remnants of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman tyranny. Iraq will be a cemetery for them and for those behind them."

Iyad Jamal Al-Din understands, is engaged in the public dabate in Iraq, and if that public debate continues guys like Iyad Jamal Al-Din will win it.

That is why we must stay, so the public political debate can continue.

[Sonora]

Simply the best post I’ve seen on this subject!

[TeenagedConservative]

I asked: "If that’s true, why not attack one of the countries that was actually ruled by a jihadist government, like Iran or Syria?"

You responded: "There is more hope of the Iraqis emerging out of the Middle East's Islamic imposed dark Ages than a country ruled by full blown jihadist government, like Iran or Syria."

Now there's some logic for you. "Iraq's a threat. It must be neutralized." "Then why not attack bigger threats first, such as the state sponsors of the 9/11 hijackers?" "They're not receptive to re-education. We must pick easy targets."

If the point is to eliminate threats, we attack the big threats. I can accept, if not agree 100% with this reasoning. But you are saying that must balance that goal with "planting seeds of democracy," engaging in blatant nation-building and dragon-hunting. This is exactly what the Founders warned against. Federalism protects the states from the government because the Founders knew the government would eventually try to centralize power. Interventionism leads to imperialism, which forces an extraordinarily powerful central authority.

[Yardstick]

...but she is not a communist.

Here's what your friend Jane said to a bunch students at Michigan U on November 21, 1970:

"If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."

Does this sound like something a communist would say? It does to me. I guess you missed this in your research.

And just to make herself perfectly clear, she said this a short while later at Duke University:

"I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism."

This should be explicit enough that even a befuddled contrarian like you can discern her political bent.

I wonder what's driving your oddball desire to make excuses for communists? Did you get pwned by some lefties on another forum or something? Is this like some kind of Stockholm syndrome? Do we need to stage an intervention?

[dynoman]

*Sigh*

Re. the threat posts 80-85;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323498/posts?page=85#80

Re. nation building;

Democratic Freedom

There has been a major shift away from propping up the lesser of two evils to trying to foster environments of Democratic Freedom. It didn't start with G.W. Bush either.

Think about this for a while especially Dr. R.J. Rummel's work then you might understand better why Iraq, why now.

[dynoman]

I don’t think our founding fathers would have the slightest problem with us trying to share the discovery of Democratic Freedom with others.

It is not “engaging in blatant nation-building and dragon-hunting”.

It’s a win-win for all except totalitarian dictators who lose control of their slaves.