Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[dmek25]

i didn't say don't fight them. what i said is being in Iraq serves absolutely no purpose. if you think because of us fighting in Iraq, the terrorists will not strike in the United States, you are just kidding yourself. the more i think about this administrations plan of attack, the more i think that they really didn't have one

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i didn't say don't fight them. what i said is being in Iraq serves absolutely no purpose. if you think because of us fighting in Iraq, the terrorists will not strike in the United States, you are just kidding yourself. the more i think about this administrations plan of attack, the more i think that they really didn't have one

Well we haven't had an attack in this country sense 9/11 so the administration gets the credit. Its not like they have not tried to attack us because we have broken up several terr. plots over the past couple of years. We all know terrorist will strike again and they only have to get it right once to succeed. You also cannot say that the war has served no purpose because then you must have the ability to see into history.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we haven't had an attack in this country sense 9/11 so the administration gets the credit. Its not like they have not tried to attack us because we have broken up several terr. plots over the past couple of years. We all know terrorist will strike again and they only have to get it right once to succeed. You also cannot say that the war has served no purpose because then you must have the ability to see into history.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the administration does change hands. Particularly if a Democrat wins, Will terrorists see it as an opportunity to test the new President. Similar to what happened to Gordon Brown in Great Britain.

I shouldn't say interesting, I should say somewhat frightening. And it's not limited to just Democrats of course.

Let's just say I think late January/early February 2009 might be a good time to visit Vancouver.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we haven't had an attack in this country sense 9/11 so the administration gets the credit. Its not like they have not tried to attack us because we have broken up several terr. plots over the past couple of years. We all know terrorist will strike again and they only have to get it right once to succeed. You also cannot say that the war has served no purpose because then you must have the ability to see into history.

using this school of thought, then this administration is totally at fault for 9-11. bush and company tend to keep us living in fear. so how do i know what they have broken up? could all be a buch of crap, made up by the republicans, to have people believe that they are doing a masterful job at keeping our country secure. not that anyone in this administration has ever lied to us before

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

using this school of thought, then this administration is totally at fault for 9-11. bush and company tend to keep us living in fear. so how do i know what they have broken up? could all be a buch of crap, made up by the republicans, to have people believe that they are doing a masterful job at keeping our country secure. not that anyone in this administration has ever lied to us before

Dmek,

I definately agree that the Bush administration has used the war on terrorism as a political tool. The war on terrorism is, however, quite real. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, AQI, etc. truly are evil. There are a lot of radical Islamic terrorist groups who would love to see Americans killed in droves. I do not know if you meant to say that none of the foregoing is true.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Dmek,

I definately agree that the Bush administration has used the war on terrorism as a political tool. The war on terrorism is, however, quite real. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, AQI, etc. truly are evil. There are a lot of radical Islamic terrorist groups who would love to see Americans killed in droves. I do not know if you meant to say that none of the foregoing is true.

i know the threat of terrorism is real. i know that there are tons of people of all religions that would like nothing better to see Americans killed/ and or tortured. but to say that this administration has stopped countless attacks, has little credibility to me. these groups have been around long before 9/11, but president bush would have you believe this is all something new. he basically stirred up a hornets nest by invading Iraq, when we really had no business doing so

[KLHJ2]

In all actuality Terrorism became the threat as we know it today just after the end of the cold war. Much of it can be attributed to the Regan administration. we were laxidazily supporting both Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East. All we wantd to do was promote peace in the region. Peace talks between the two peoples were never successfull. While the US tried to stay nuetral and promote peace the majority of its citizens were either of Jewish or Christian background. The Arab Nation believed that we were more supportive of the Israelis and made us an enemy. They started the attacks, and not a single thing was done about it until the Lil' Bush administration.

You say that our presence in Iraq is not necessary and there is no real proof of progress. Well Sir, I would have to disagree. Had we not invaded Iraq do you think that we would have detered the attacks that we already have? Furthermore, do you believe that the attacks would have stopped if we just stayed in Afghanistan after 911. The terrorists had to flee Afghanistan and set up terror cells somewhere. Where would they be treated more at home than under the regime of Sadam Huessein? While I understand that Iraq is not the only place that they have relocated and occupied, why not knock out 2 birds with one stone? Iraqi's were not free and lived in terror themselves under the rule of a dictator that we overthrew.

In this process we have destroyed much, and the only civilized thing left to do is ensure that their nation is rebuilt and mostly recovered from our occupation, which was necessary. Otherwise we would be leaving them at the mercy of the next tyrant to gain power.

Either way, which ever approach that we take, Terrorism isn't going to stop. For years I always asked why I was deployed from my home and my family so much. About 2 years ago it all made since. By the US keeping US servicemembers abroad in other countries, they are helping to keep the enemy off of our backs, out of our back yards and away from our gates.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by angryssg

In all actuality Terrorism became the threat as we know it today just after the end of the cold war. Much of it can be attributed to the Regan administration. we were laxidazily supporting both Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East. All we wantd to do was promote peace in the region. Peace talks between the two peoples were never successfull. While the US tried to stay nuetral and promote peace the majority of its citizens were either of Jewish or Christian background. The Arab Nation believed that we were more supportive of the Israelis and made us an enemy. They started the attacks, and not a single thing was done about it until the Lil' Bush administration.

See, I believe that when the United States tries to "promote peace" in a region of the world that has never known it, all you do is wind up pissing somebody off. You're right that the Arab world saw us as favoring Israel. That's one of the primary reasons for anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Ultimately, I just think it proves that the best thing for us to do is to stay out of it. Just like you wouldn't leave your home today for a flight out to south-central Los Angeles looking to pick sides in whichever gang war you could find.

Keep in mind though -- Lil' Bush had no plans for terrorism until after the 9/11 attacks.

Originally Posted by angryssg

You say that our presence in Iraq is not necessary and there is no real proof of progress. Well Sir, I would have to disagree. Had we not invaded Iraq do you think that we would have detered the attacks that we already have? Furthermore, do you believe that the attacks would have stopped if we just stayed in Afghanistan after 911. The terrorists had to flee Afghanistan and set up terror cells somewhere. Where would they be treated more at home than under the regime of Sadam Huessein? While I understand that Iraq is not the only place that they have relocated and occupied, why not knock out 2 birds with one stone? Iraqi's were not free and lived in terror themselves under the rule of a dictator that we overthrew.

The one thing 9/11 proved is that there really isn't any way to prevent a small group of determined religious fanatics from doing a whole lot of damage and killing lots of innocent civilians. The hijackers were able to carry out their plan without our being in Iraq. They conceived, planned, financed, trained, and succeeded in the United States -- in places like Minnesota and Virginia Beach -- right under our noses. No military occupation anywhere in the world will stop 6 or 7 guys from dropping off a suitcase bomb in a shopping mall.

The United States military is currently stationed in 130 countries all over the world. Our presence in all of these places didn't deter the 9/11 attacks. Our imperialistic attitude will only serve to foster more hatred toward us.

[dmek25]

I'm willing to give him the credit, if he is willing to accept the blame? no one in this administration has ever admitted to being wrong about anything. and angryssg, i think the better plan of attack would have been to attack Afghanistan with both barrels, until bin laden was either captured or killed. that way we would be showing that the united states means business. if you attack us, we will hunt you down, and get you. to win in iraq, you will have to change an entire civilizations thought process. somehow i dont think that will happen

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

I'm willing to give him the credit, if he is willing to accept the blame? no one in this administration has ever admitted to being wrong about anything. and angryssg, i think the better plan of attack would have been to attack Afghanistan with both barrels, until bin laden was either captured or killed. that way we would be showing that the united states means business. if you attack us, we will hunt you down, and get you. to win in iraq, you will have to change an entire civilizations thought process. somehow i dont think that will happen

Ok, I'm tired of this subject. We can go back and forth and what is said today is what was said back in other threads and post with maybe just a different twist. So are you planing on going to any of the games this year?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

I'm willing to give him the credit, if he is willing to accept the blame? no one in this administration has ever admitted to being wrong about anything.

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Cheney: 'I was wrong about insurgency'

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Cheney: 'I was wrong about insurgency'

lol...good post

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Cheney: 'I was wrong about insurgency'

thanks. it only took 6+ years to get it. but it is a start. the americaqn people need to hear this kind of thing

[dmek25]

if warpath comes thru, ill be at the lions game. and i am going to Tampa to see the skins. how about you? and thanks for the civil discussion

[dall-assblows]

i think bob dole has the best plan