# What should we honestly do?



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

What do you guys think we should do in regards to Iraq? I don't want to see posts about we should've never been there, we have no business over there, blah, blah, blah. I would like to hear some ideas on what we can do now. There are car bombings over there daily killing 100's of people it seems. Let's pretend that our soldiers are over there and there wasn't anything we could do about it....WHAT IS THE STEP NOW? Do we pull out and just let it "fix" itself? Stay there till the government is set up?

I am just curious. I honestly don't think we can leave now and pull our troops out yet...it would cause havoc and a civil war over there in my opinion. What can we do though to stop the car bombers? Kind of hard to fight a war when they don't care if they die.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

We cannot leave at this time but we also will not stop the car bombers. The middle east has been like this for centuries, only the weapons and justifications change. Look at Israel, they have had the same type of bombings long before we got there. As far as I can see, and read recently in multiple papers, our military expects to spend many years there. It reminds me so much of Vietnam. The radicals in the middle east (just like Mao's followers) will never quit, feel they are justified by both the past and supported by their religion. It is just one more example of where religion has polarized a region (just like this country). I suspect that the muslim radicals are assuming if they keep this up for the next 20+ years, the americans will go home so regardless of our efforts, they will keep bombing for the next 20+ years. 
I would ask the question, would mankind be having more or less war if religions did not exist? Our previous 3 thousand years of history tells me religion (or alternatively the suppression of religion like communism and hitler) have been at the root of most of the wars.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Duketter

I think as long as the new government feels we will stay they will not work to hard to take care of themselves. We need to put some pressure on them. Give them a deadline of, just to throw a number out, 2007. We can extend that, but shouldn't tell them that. If freedom is valuable to them, like it is us, they should be willing to sacrifice. It is easy for them to let Americans die, but enough is enough. Also, if they value what we have done for them I hope they, as an oil rich country, will at least partially compensate us for their freedom. 
I wish them the best, but I would start to hold their feet to the fire. They are improving, and more of them are dieing than us. I hope they learn to take care of themselves shortly. Even if we do stay more years, I hope that within the next year, year and a half we are only in an advisory capacity. 
To pull out now would mean all who have died would have died in vain. I think everyone agrees on that.
One of our greatest problems is the world knows we will always help. They do not spend as much on defense because of our reputation. As much as countries like France and Germany complain, deep down in their heart they worry less because of us, and they spend less on their military because they know we will help if the need arises. Were suckers.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Two things have to come to past before we can make a judgment on that. The Iraq constitution must be written and then ratified by the people. Second is the election of a government of Iraq. Remember everything is temporary at this time. When these two things happen which will be by the end of this year for their constitution and elections I believe early next year, then you will see the US start to pull troops out on a time table.

Keep in mind that religion has little if anything to do with the fighting in Iraq today. After all, the population of Iraq is almost 100% Muslim with the exception of a small percentage of Christians....... yep, there are Christians in Iraq. So to blame the problems of a internal conflict in the middle east on religion is to not understand what is going on there. These terrorists are killing men, women and children and they are all Muslims that are dying.

There is a history of tribal conflict in Iraq as in all nations history but so far the temporary government has been doing a pretty good job of not allowing the terrorist to turn the different groups against each other. That is the terrorists goal...the USA could leave tomorrow and the bombings would continue simply because the terrorist want to be in power.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Plainsmen said: 
We need to put some pressure on them. Give them a deadline of, just to "throw a number out, 2007."

I agree with what you all said Plainsmen, but didn't we already give them a time table and we are already off on that one? Can't remember, but I thought we did?

Gohon said:
"After all, the population of Iraq is almost 100% Muslim with the exception of a small percentage of Christians....... yep, there are Christians in Iraq. "

You are correct Gohon. I actually had the priviledge to talk to one of them (Christian Iraqi) that escaped Iraq and is over here now. Long story, but VERY interesting. He admits that every one of them (non terrorists) are so happy for what we have done for them. (christians and muslims) I was just in awe as he spoke.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Yes, I agree since I have spoken to some iraqis that lived under the regime as well as before Saddam or exiles within the last year in Europe. But what sticks in my memory is being assigned as an instructor in the military to Iraqi's in the early 70's. They were Sunni. Wonderful folks, admired the United States, but detested all Shiites. Those who do not understand that iraqi unrest is due to religous reasons, do not understand the middle east. There are two simultaneous religous wars going on in iraq; Sunni vers Shia and Sunni versus what they perceive to be Christian infidels who invaded their country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

To tell the truth I don't remember any time table we gave them other than the formation of their government. The whole thing is getting so complicated it is hard to keep track of. 
After all his terrorist activity, I watched on the news today, that Zaraqui (murdered that spelling, hope you get the idea) wants input into the government. To little to late I think.

My idea is to let them think we are leading after a particular date. They did miss the deadline having their elections I think. We simply need to do something to give them a feeling of impending total responsibility. Their government is very new, and I think the problem already is internal bickering. They must have democrats and republicans too.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

The elections were before the deadline, not after.

But to get back to the question posed...I will throw in my $.02.

I think it goes without saying Iran is the center of the war on terror. After Afghanistan, and now Iraq, the US has a strong foothold in the Middle East. We have "friendly" governments with two countries that border Iran enabling us to keep a better eye on them.

As far as the Iraqi's...they are protecting themselves more and more. I believe I heard their army will be up to 350,000 soldiers here shortly. They are leading an offensive in Baghdad right now. They are definitely doing much better.

What we are doing now...is actually working. If you remember when they held their elections, the Sunni's boycotted them. Now, the Sunni's are trying to get political recognition and be involved with the writing of the constitution. This here proves, in my mind, the new Iraqi government has legitimacy within the people and the Sunni's. Also, the Sunnis are having their clerics talk to the radical insurgents/terrorists. I

These people love freedom, hell look at their voter turnout! Americans do not vote when it is raining, yet these people ventured out risking their lives to vote. What democracy is doing (spread of democracy), is promoting more peace in the middle east. No 2 democracies have ever gone to war with one another. To pull out before there is stability undermines both of these objectives. This leaves no other options than to stay where we are.

Jeff

Ohh yea....what is this about Zarqawi wanting a role in the constitution?!?! Please, do you have a link? This has my interest piqued!

Unless....you meant Muqtada Al Sadr?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

We have to stay there till this is settled....It may take a few more years....and it will be tough on Americans,just as Viet Nam was.Lets just hope Civil War doesn't start and that time wears down the insurgents.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Kens right on, and remember that its not as bad over there as it sounds, we are getting a news report that is biased against Bush and the war. There are cities in America that have just as many murders weekly as many parts of Iraq. I'm not making light of the problems just trying to put some perspective on them....
Indsport I have a close friend thats an Iranian and a devout Muslim and he tells me that this is political not religious, that sunni, shia and christian live peacefully together in Iran. Its a power struggle that some are using religion as a cover for, I think he has some valuable insight on that aspect of it. And this is nothing like Vietnam, the courtry is supporting the military this time.
We need to stay there until they can run their government without our presence as a democracy. Most of the crazies are not Iraqi they are coming from all over the world through Syria. We should tell Syria if it doesn't stop they are next!


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Goose Hunting Machine is right on the mark as usuall. President Bush from the begining has told the American people that this war in Iraq will take years. Unfortunantly half of the American people don't have the resolve to finish a war. How can anyone expect a country that has been in turmoil for years, suddenly turn around and be peaceful in one year? How long did it take the United States to go from declaring our independance to actually having a government in place with a constitution? I believe it was 11 years. This is nothing like Viet Nam. In Viet Nam our military couldn't go above the 48th parallel line to attack the North. We took the entire country of Iraq. How many people were killed in Viet Nam? 56,000 Americans were killed in Viet Nam. How many Americans have been killed in Iraq? To the best of my knowledge it's around 1,200. So to equal the numbers killed in Viet Nam we will have to be there for 50 more years. This won't happen. Comparing this war to Viet Nam is the liberal media spewing propaganda to discredit President Bush. Kind of like the Newsweek article about the U.S. flushing the Koran down the toilet. Complete lie, and the media runs with the story. The media is frothing at the mouth to discredit President Bush anyway possible. It sad to see all the Americans buying into it, but this isn't a surprise. We are a pampered nation, so when CNN breaks into your favorite sit-com to report another car bombing in Iraq that kills 50 Iraqi civilians and wounds one U.S. soldier, of course people are going to start saying we should pull out right now. Go into Iraq and ask the average Iraqi if the want us to pull out. They are so greatful that we are there giving them a chance. Goose Hunting Machine is right on the mark when he says that President Bush has taken on a task to try and stabilize the middle east. This helps the United States in the long run. A stable Middle East is good for everyone in the long run. If Afganistan and Iraq are stable, than Iran will be next in line. I respect President Bush for taking on such a task and having the resolve to stick it out, while being constantly attacked by the media. Of course we could do it like Clinton did Somalia......send troops in under U.N. command, get few killed and pull out with our tails between our legs while the whole world laughs. No thanks.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

I forgot to address the religion issue brought up by indsport. This notion that religion is the root of all evil is a joke. The violence in Iraq is political not religious. Why else would you have Muslims killing Muslims. I would encourage all of you to study Christainity to educate yourself what it is really about. If you do that than you will find out that Christianity is fighting against evil. And as stated in the Bible "the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church."


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

*HOLY MOLY*

This thread has remained somewhat civil ! Congrats guys for actually thinking before you type! :beer:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> And this is nothing like Vietnam, the courtry is supporting the military this time.


How very true. A lot of people never realized that we actually defeated and destroyed the Viet Cong in Viet Nam and we kept the North Viet Nam regulars in check. Where we failed miserable is we never completely won over the civilian population. Apparently someone paid attention to this as we seem to be working very hard to win the support of the people of Iraq.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Goose Hunting Machine

Ohh yea....what is this about Zarqawi wanting a role in the constitution?!?! Please, do you have a link? This has my interest piqued!

Unless....you meant Muqtada Al Sadr?

Your exactly right GHM. I guess I can't make it from the upstairs tv to the computer without forgetting. If this keeps up I will be able to hide my own Easter eggs. Yup, it was that chubby cleric with the baby face and the wide ten gallon turban. Old what's his face.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> If this keeps up I will be able to hide my own Easter eggs


Boy can I relate to that one, and I'm young compared to you :lol:


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Yea, I read about Al-Sadr wanting a role. That is a tough issue. Do we give into a terrorist? What role will this play in regards to future terrorists/would be terrorists? Will it provoke more uprising in order to get their way?

Or...the opposite...will it help calm the insurgency into peaceful resolve for political participation?

Bottom line, at the end of the day it will be what the Iraqi government chooses to do.

And yes, this is also about politics. The Sunnies (the current Iraqi insurgents) were in political power during Saddam's tenure. What puts this into perspective as to why they are killing for political power is because they are a super minority and realize their political dominance over the shi`ites is over.

But, it is also about religion since there are foriegn fighters there (Al-Qaieda in Iraq). According to the Islamo-facist Muslim, terrorist everyone that is not a Muslim is an "Infidel." Infidels are basically given a choice, convert or die. The American's are there in the holy land, and we are "the dirtiest of all hands" according to these islamo-facists.

About the Vietnam synonymn...During Viet Nam, Before and after the war, when we left Viet Nam, the threat stayed put. In this case, the threat has already came to the homeland, much like the Japanese did in W.W. II

my take on it all...

Jeff


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

GHM,



> About the Vietnam synonymn...During Viet Nam, Before and after the war, when we left Viet Nam, the threat stayed put. In this case, the threat has already came to the homeland, much like the Japanese did in W.W. II


How so? I'm just curious I'm not trying to be a smart arse.

I don't recall any one from Iraq being involved in Sept 11th nor do I recall any of those involved being Sunnie or Shi'it? or were you talking about something else?

TC


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

tail chaser said:


> GHM,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TC,

The war on terror...Iraq is part of the war on terror. If we pull out without killing every last terrorist...they can still come here and attack us (again). I realize what I just said is naive; we will not kill every last terrorist. Also, nothing is stopping a potential terrorist attack here in the US while we are in Iraq. What I am saying is, before, during, and after the Viet Nam war, the Vietnamese guerrilas were never a threat to come to the homeland in an attack. Saying that about the terrorist of today is not only naive, but very wrong.

About September 11th...I believe you are right...there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. I do believe there was evidence linking Iraq to atleast one terrorist attack (do not want to say it just yet...must confirm first.) Lastly, Saddam offered Bin Ladin a safe haden in Iraq to train. But again, no Iraqi's with 9/11.

Ohh, and I think Usama is a Shi ' ite.

Jeff


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

> Ohh, and I think Usama is a Shi ' ite.


I think Usama is a Shi'ite minus the 'ie

Thanks for making it clear

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

While there may be no direct evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 there is no question that Saddam was involved in terrorism with his financial support and his harboring of terroists.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> While there may be no direct evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 there is no question that Saddam was involved in terrorism with his financial support and his harboring of terroists.


I think also had Iraq gone unchecked that Afghanistan would not have been successful with Iraq and Iran's guns constantly pointed at them. If some form of democracy develops and holds in these two countries, whether it be something like Turkey or something else, then I believe in our life time we will see a dramatic change in the Middle East.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I do not deny Saddam was bad news, I don't think we should pack up and leave Iraq in a hurry without getting it right either. Leaving Iraq in a state of disorganization before they have control only creates a breeding ground for more terrorists. Not to mention the moral obligations. Having said that at what point do we say "I don't think Iraq will ever be self governed by the people" and call it quits?

All of us here in this forum for one reason or another have said why we don't trust the media, its hard to find accurate and reliable information on what is going on in Iraq. I think that is huge problem, we as tax payers should be more informed on what a 300 billion dollar bill is getting us.
This is the biggest downfall of this adminstration in my mind. Some would argue the bill I talk of gets me the freedom and safty I have had while the war on terror has been going on. If you really study terrorism you can't win the whole war, you are never completely safe from it, it can,t be done.

Try this... ask yourself the question: "What is the goal of the Iraq war?"

I asked 25 people this question and got 25 totally different answers.
Everthing from oil, padding Haliburtons pockets to killing Bin Laden. If we catch or kill Osama in Iraq I'll run for office on the Republican ticket!

I think this confusion or disconnect of what we trying to accomplish or how we are going about it has led to the public growing a little short. Its just my opinion but I don't feel the military and contractors are being held accountable to any major goals since the election has past. So far we know the lines for police and military recruitment are the targets of bombers. I'm not a military expert but can't this be solved can't we have staging areas of inspection and then transport recruits to a safe place or something along those lines.

I know its not easy I just question that Iraq will emerg as a place of democracy from a region that has been burried in turmoil and violence for so long. If some of you think a region can change its political thinking in a short period of time how long do you think it will be before North Dakota becomes a blue state in a presidential race?

I'm not as anti war on terror/Iraq as some of you might think I am however against how it is being fought.

TC


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

What is happening over there IS NOT "political thinking"

It is the head butting going on between "Theocratic Compliance" and "Secular Governance"

I believe the problem we as "Average Americans" have is we might tend to believe ........

The Religious folks would be the ones with the conscience and the turn the other cheek mentality...

And the Secular, (non religious or not so religious) folks might be the Brutal Bastards ...

Well in the Muslim World of these "Islamic Fundamentalist Whackos" that logic is turned exactly on its head.

Please do not read that to say I believe all Muslims are Whackos &#8230; when I say that I am differentiating the "Whacko Fundamentalists" from the "Normal Muslims" &#8230; but there is some common ground between both groups that give the whackos free rein as I see it.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> at what point do we say "I don't think Iraq will ever be self governed by the people" and call it quits?


Why should we say that at all? Yes there has been American lives lost in this war and the cost in dollars is high but the accomplishments are staggering. We are seeing history in the making as far as I am concerned. Kind of like the fall of the Ottoman empire and the rise of a Democracy from the ashes in Turkey. I see nothing but good for the US and the world if this is successful.



> Its just my opinion but I don't feel the military and contractors are being held accountable to any major goals since the election has past. So far we know the lines for police and military recruitment are the targets of bombers. I'm not a military expert but can't this be solved can't we have staging areas of inspection and then transport recruits to a safe place or something along those lines.


Yes, we could hold their hand and we could form a ring around them but then there would be no incentive for the people of Iraq to fend for themselves. Right now the people have been given self rule and authority to act on their own and this is what they ask for. Think about it, not a day goes by that a dozen or so people standing in line at police recruiting stations are killed by terrorist. But, still the get in line every morning. Look at their election where under threat of death they still came in droves to vote. We can't even get our people out when it rains. These people are dying for their own freedom and it wasn't that long ago this country was ready to accept help from anyone in fighting for our own freedom. Wait until they write their constitution and hold their first permanent elections and then we can take a hard look at when we should pull out. A stabilized Afghanistan and Iraq with a form of democracy in the heart of the middle east would be priceless in terms of peace for the world.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gohon wrote:

Wait until they write their constitution and hold their first permanent elections and then we can take a hard look at when we should pull out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From where I sit ... I don't see a day when we will "Pull Out" ... we may possibly pull out of populated areas, but somehow I bet we maintain some HUGE military presence out in the Western Desert of Iraq ...

I believe these Secular Gorverments will need our support in the form of security and fire power for about as long as we can possibly see into the future.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

This is a little old by now ... and maybe you have read it ... if it's already been posted here ... I apologize.

This is a great overview of what it is we are dealing with in the Middle East.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE 
By Larry Abraham January 29,2004

Dictionary definition of

CALIPH ... successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam.

CALIPHITE ... the office or dominion of a CALIPH ...........

The war against terror did not begin on September 11,2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of it's existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in it's infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of it's early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the church.

What Islam offered was "the carrot or the sword." If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making.

In the beginning, even the theology was not hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish Prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book" ... the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for the former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading "the word" Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First Great Jihad" and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula.

This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second Great Jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured in to warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet."

By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any future territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into Sheikdoms, Emir dominated principalities and roving tribes of Nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming it's internal failures on everyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam, which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds it's most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It's Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is known as Osama bin Ladin, the leader of the "Third Jihad" who is Wahhabi as were his 911 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "Westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S and subdued acceptance of the state of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Remember "America Held Hostage"?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate."

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "Occupied Territory" Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the Jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals.

First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam.

Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves.

Third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel.

A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies, but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, worldwide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point - Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determination resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished&#8230;"two steps forward, one step back".

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable little hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.

********** End Report **********


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

We should reinstall draft, send more troops in Iraq, seal its borders, round up the insurgents and help Iraqi people to establish a democracy there. Then, we should take most of the troops back home. However, we did not finish the job in Afghanistan. Therefore, we need a bigger army to handle that too. Bush is a half smart person, which can be best translated like stupid. No draft and three wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and international terrorism. He squandered war on terror and stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not wait too long and replace the gGvernment at the next elections. Go to vote anti-Republican.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Too bad when we send our troops in for nation building we are not talking about our nation! I hope I am wrong about this and guys like Gohan are right but this is how I see it. The only thing we are going to accomplish in Iraq by staying one more day is adding to the names on the Iraq war memorial! My support for this war ended the day we stopped looking for WMDs any day past that I see as gross misuse of govermental powers. I also belive when you are in a fight or a war it is your duty to use the best weapons at your disposal to minimise casualtys on our side, any other action is treason in my book. What should we do in Iraq? Gohan knows what I am about to say. First I would tell every family that their son or husband or daughter or wife will be home in a week. Then stategic air command SAC would make an example of Iraq to the whole world. With this message, any further terrorist action on American soil will be met with the full might of the U.S military we will not hesitate to act and all negotiations are off. DROP IT Exterminate them all !!! LTC Kurtz


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Then stategic air command SAC would make an example of Iraq to the whole world


Oh that's just great........... kill women and children just to set an example to the world. I think at the moment we are calling that kind of action terrorism by terrorist .


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bore.224

Please read my previous post ... ...

This issue is much less about WMD ... (even tough WMD do indeed raise the stakes should they fall in the hands of the Fundamentalist Muslim Whackos) ...

than it is about an ongoing thought process on "their" end.

The entire mentality in that region of the world "MUST" change in order for us to maintain any sort of "normalcy" in our existence.

If you miss that point and fail to see the significance of our having a foot-old in that region of the world (in order to try to affect that mentality) and also if you fail to see the need for "normal folks" ruling themselves (in that region) as opposed to a "Theocratic Dominion" imposing Sharia Law on the multitudes ....

Then you deny the reality the Western World faces today.

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DecoyDummy

Very interesting report I enjoyed it. Yes it would be nice to have a foot hold in the middle east. Yes it would be great to inject our culture into them and see them and ourselfs grow together and yes it would be great if the knock at my door is a 6 foot blond nimfo maniak with a 6 pack and a hot pizza. If the 3rd jihads objective is to annilate Israel why is it the job of America to stop it?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Because all of "Western Civilization" is on the chopping block ... the goal of these folks is a World with nothing but Islam.

Unless te Secularists can gain control over the Fanatics, all non-belivers are eventually to be done away with.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

What are you two talking about?

Back on topic.

What i think we need to do now is prod the Iraqi government to get there behinds in gear; stop squabling over the little stuff and get some controll over their own nation. We need to be ther to help them do this.

And i think you are right about the extreemist leaders who are planning all of these terrorist attacks. They are not interested in any kind of "Holy War" nearly as much as they are interested in gaining power. they are no different than Saddam; they are all just a pack of wana-bee dictators. They are trying to de-stablalize the new government so they can take controll. These Radicals are not fighting a war of Religion: they are only using religion to trick the hapless into doing their dirty work.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

haven't read all the posts but i feel we need to secure the borders. if we don't then no matter how many insurgents we kill, they'll just keep flowing in... they are mostly foreigners...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> they'll just keep flowing in... they are mostly foreigners...


Yes, we do need to secure our borders. But,.............aahh........well, insurgents are people within a country that rise up against their government. The people coming across our borders are simple illegal or terrorists. That's another misconception about Iraq, we're fighting very few insurgents there. Most are terrorists from other countries. Certainly no one can claim the suicide bombers are not terrorists.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

According to a radio talk show I have heard most of the terrorists are Iraqies not from other countrys, Do you guys have a source that states most combatants are coming from the outside of Iraq?


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Bore.224 said:


> According to a radio talk show I have heard most of the terrorists are Iraqies not from other countrys, Do you guys have a source that states most combatants are coming from the outside of Iraq?


http://www.unfoundation.org/IraqinTransition.pdf (This report looks like it was compiled by the U.N...... so who knows how accurate it might be, but interesting reading all the same)

This link has some good info on the insurgency. It appears, after reading through the info, that the Iraqis are in the majority as far as combatants go, but that there is an ongoing, growing, problem with other Arabs from Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc... coming across the border.


----------

