Replies

See Post #20 and I too remember well the NY Times staff squawking about there was no AQ in Iraq.

I also remember well the media supporting going after AQ wherever they were but it became convenient for them to turn on Bush and the American people by claiming AQ was no longer in Iraq or operative much of anywhere. They said this and printed it and had no knowledge if they were inaccurate or not. It was all a campaign to characterize the war efforts as without merit and unjustified.

Democrats always do this, they run away and let a victory turn to defeat and then blame the republicans for the mess.

I will give you a specific example, a real on the ground example told by a person in local contact with AQ.

His name is Azhar and is 100% westernized Pakistani living in Karachi but very successful in business. He lived in the USA for a long spell and visits often as his brother and his brother’s family live in the USA and are American citizens. All are very fond of the USA and its rule of law. They would like for nothing more than Pakistan be more like the USA.

Azhar told me that the locals where he lived couldn’t just go round up AQ and their families because AQ had been living among them for 30 years and had intermarried.

But what they could do is make AQ and its jihad cult very unpopular as long as the USA was seen as strong and invincible.

Azhar said the Paki population was steering the AQ youth away from jihad. It was no longer popular and actually was seen as an embarrassment on par with Somali pirates up against Navy destroyers and Seal Teams. What the AQ kids wanted was to grow up educated and prepared to join the first world.

And the local attitudes towards AQ jihad in Pakistan are mirrored in Iraq.

How then does Obama’s dereliction regarding Iraq help to foster anti-AQ sentiments? Answer: It doesn’t.

Another example:
An Iranian friend of mine in Amsterdam and another friend in Israel on the recent ‘let up’ on the regime in Iran. My Iranian friend hates the mullahs there and says and I have confirmed with others that many people in Iran hate the mullahs too. When the Shah was in power there was a middle class and people could buy a home and a car, their kids could attend college and life was quite good. But the Shah’s secret police went too far and the people wanted some honesty so they thought Khomeini might be what they need. They were wrong. The Mullahs took over just as Mandela in S. Africa and split the power and riches among their cronies. The Iranian middle class died and my Iranian friend sees the same happening to the USA.

The Iranian people hate the Mullahs and want to see them gone. Given the opportunity they will brave any hardship to rid the country of these “bastards” as they call them. But they will not tolerate an outside attack led by foreigners. That will make them angry.

Iranians are different from Iraqis because Iraqis are a patchwork of many different peoples who will not be necessarily angered if an outside force steps in. The 40 million Kurds to the north in Iraq love Americans and are grateful to God for the sacrifice that Americans made in Iraq. The Iraqi Sunnis do not necessarily like the American presence but they accepted it as long as it was not seen in their daily lives. Petraeus handled the population just right.

But what does Obama do in Iran? He allows the prospects of lifting sanctions to be floated. What does that mean specifically? It means billions upon tens of billions of frozen assets for example 20,000 kg of Iranian gold frozen in place in UAE can be released. Released to who? To the bastard mullahs that the people hate.

Will this help the people in Iran? Of course not. All we needed to do was to keep the siege going on Iraq and in fact as my Iranian friend and Israeli friend both said separately that tripling the sanctions would lead to starvation in Iran but this was good medicine, why? Because the Iranian people would not blame America or NATO countries for their starvation, they would blame the mullahs and they would rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

So Obama lets AQ revive itself in Iraq and lets the mullahs salivate at tens of billions of dollars in assets for themselves and their cronies while the people in both countries suffer.

In Iraq all that needed to be done was a massive drone strike against AQ leaders. In Iran all that was necessary was a tripling of the sanctions. The people in both place would have taken care of the rest.

But the pukes at the NY Times see the failure of Obama in Iraq and scramble for damage control by trying to divert attention to GW Bush. It’s Obama’s world now and AQ is taking control in Iraq and the mullahs are smiling in Iran. This is the legacy of Obama.

Let’s be clear, if the Iranian government gets the bomb, it is a 100% certainty that they will give the bomb to one of their sponsored terrorist groups who will not hesitate to use it on us or our European allies. It will happen.

And if the pukes at the NY Times still exist, they will write how the nuclear explosion was a payback to the USA for all its interference in Iran and support of the Shah.

So chessplayer, your NY Times friends have NO point. They have lunacy wrapped in a defense of their leftist leader Obama.

And you did know that far more than 50% of the NY Times editorial staff are homosexual? Well you do now. Look it up.