Iraq Is The Wrong Arena to Fight the War on Terror

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Feb 18 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]392796[/snapback]</div>

We will agree to disagree.

Last successful attack on US soil since 9/11 was?

Al Qaeda is the only terror group you seek to eliminate? And then how do you propose to do so? Are you going to violate a sovereign countries borders to get to them? Are you going to invade France if the French dont act?

And if we leave Iraq - what do you think will happen right then and there? Do you think it might look like the killing fields? Do you think Iran moves in?

And how do you choose whom to eliminate - are you worried about a lack of intelligence , what of civilian casualties - especially in countries we invade without Congressional approval.

I just don't see how you get the job done without being on the offense.

And what of Iran, do you let them develop nuclear weapons - or do you want to attack their facilities or what do you want to do if anything - I mean with the UN deadline for enriching material 2 days away....

And what ground have we lost - let them mass and attack - the best thing that could happen. If we have lost so much ground - why doesn't OBL come on out from that deep dark hole he is residing in??

Anyhow, we will always disagree. Your turn is next - the Dems will cut off funding for the war , we will leave Iraq, and then see how right or wrong you are. I bet you are way wrong. The only question i have is how many people die - both them and Americans at home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Feb 18 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]392796[/snapback]</div>

And how sad we are responsible for the destruction and fragmentation of the country. We are responsible for the genocide. And do we have anything to show for the thousands of american men and women who lost their lives? Well, no. We aren't even smart enough to take all of the oil fields, oil, fly the flag and say, "It's ours in compensation for this valuable service we've provided." So we shove more money down the war's black hole and Haliburton and the other no bid contractors suck us dry with overcharging, lost or stolen equipment, no supplies, inferior supplies, etc. I know who I blame.

In hindsight, it appears those in America making the decision to go to war were clueless as to what exactly would happen. They ignored those in a position to warn them. (Perhaps because they didn't contribute enough to the election?) Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping Al Queda out of Iraq. Once he was eliminated, Al Queda moved right in. The only Shite government in the Middle East is Iran and even they aren't happy with it. Muslims just don't see Shites as government leaders. All other Governments are Sunni and they don't like what we're doing in Iraq. What makes anyone think they'd help their "fellow Muslims" form any sort of government with Shite participants? Turkey doesn't want the Kurds. They consider them an inferior race. And in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Al Queda is getting stronger. They're starting to bomb girl's schools again. And....Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Al Queda is still out there and stronger than ever. Why not? They've got one of the greatest recruiting tools out there and the marketing is FREE. We could end the war tomorrow and Al Queda would still be able to recruit as many as they want.

Boy, I'll bet the presses are going to heat up with all of the books, poised for print, on the Legacy of the Bush II Presidency. And it's not going to be pretty.

In the mean time he's staying the course. Another lobbyist appointed to government office.

I could just heave.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Feb 19 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]392847[/snapback]</div>

Tell me, do honestly believe everything you have said here? And if you say it often enough, does it become more believable?

In terms of legacies - we shall see what clintons will be - oops - thats if sandy berger left any papers for us to read :lol: clinton can also teach some courses:

1. sex with interns in the oval office 101
2. how to have sex with young interns and not draw the ire of feminists 102
3. how not to catch terrorists 101
4. how to lie under oath 404 (senior level course since he did it as POTUS)
5. how to get impeached 301 (again, experience here is key)
6. how not to have sex with young women 101, 201, 301, 401 :lol:

And if want more oil - we should invade anwr or maybe the gulf of mexico

Since you have all the answers - tell me - what happens to that region if the Dems ever get any testosterone and stop funding the war and we retreat in defeat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Feb 18 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]392796[/snapback]</div>

I forgot the obvious - now you are believe American intelligence services? So you also believe Iraq has WMD's too :lol: Or are you just a selective believer :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 19 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]392830[/snapback]</div>

Regretfully I think its going to take another 9/11, to open the Dems eyes. If they react at all, no 'dbermanmd' the Dems will blame it on GWB as it was his fault, the pointing game.. The game they do so well...

 

LOL, it's outright hilarious when pg04 points out morales... you ought to be nearly dead last in giving out such accusations :lol: .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 20 2007, 06:23 AM) [snapback]393192[/snapback]</div>

Im glad to be of some humor to you Mizra-ble
Like you have room to talk "Oh yeah pot - kettle"

Yes I have Morales, and you have gloom & doom what a pair....
B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Feb 19 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]392965[/snapback]</div>

I have not, but I am glad to see at least one person i know is.

If you want to give me a short synopsis of this fascinating trial i would be delighted to read it - but please stick to the facts - you can start by telling me if Plame was truly an undercover CIA agent or not and then prove it.

 

"Morales"..... good one! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 19 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]392830[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but i can't let this one get by... Al Queda attacked us in 2001. We invade Iraq in response, violating a sovereign countries boarders to get them, and you, Berman, say it was the right thing to do. In countless threads, you've attempted to defend you position that we need to be there because it's preventing another 9/11 (or something to that effect).

Now evidence comes out that Al Queda is reorganized and established in another country. OBL has complete control again. And yet you're speaking out against going after them, because it would be invading another country's sovereign borders. Way to be consistent.

Seriously Berman, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? You act as though the war in Iraq is the only thing keeping terrorists off US soil. You act as though invading Iraq was the proper thing to do, but won't support invading another country for the exact same reasons.

It's pretty damn clear that you don't have much of a personal opinion. You sit there and listen/read what Bush and his cronies are up to, then tout it as the best thing ever. Toe the party line, make sure you're that staunch republican. Good job.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 20 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]393275[/snapback]</div>

I do not think it is so black and white as you put it. and now you are listening to American intelligence sources - is this a case of selective believing on your part?? I could not care less if you take me seriously or not - it is not like I take you seriously

And if you could tell me which party I should toe the line to it would help. The problem with the Dems is that they have NO plan, no testosterone save for a NON-BINDING vote - in fact they have as much guts in the House as they have on the battlefield - ZERO! And that is why Americans do NOT trust them in general with our security.

And you still have not explained to me how we could attack al qaeda without invading other countries? please let me know how you would do that. i mean if al qaeda is in iran - are you advocating going after them there? I mean you wont even stop iran from developing nukes by destroying their facilities - you want me to believe you are going to kill people over there???? You are tooooo much.

 

I'm not advocating anything. I'm not proposing anything. All i'm doing is asking a pretty simple question to you: What made it right to invade Iraq, to violate that sovereign country, under the banner of the "war on terror" but makes it's wrong to do so to another country? Please, answer that question.

FWIW, I don't think we have a right to invade a country in order to attack terrorists that we think are there. I don't think we had the right to attack Iraq like we did. Sadam was horrible, and i cheered when he was removed from power and again when he paid for his crimes against humanity, but at the same time we had no right to do what we did. We went in to fight terrorists, and instead ended up destabilizing an entire country and creating a breeding ground for new terrorists. good job, Bush.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 20 2007, 11:02 AM) [snapback]393298[/snapback]</div>

The same right we have to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Unless of course you think we should stand by and let that happen...

And if you think Saddam was not connected to "Terror" you are wearing blinders.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]393366[/snapback]</div>

You're the one who is wearing blinders if you think it's our right to police the world. Saddam's acts were, for the most part, local. He killed a lot of his own people, but lets face it - He wasn't stupid enough to actually attack the US. There were indications that he wasn't complying with the UN in terms of military armaments, but at the same time there wasn't strict proof that he had WMDs - and we still haven't found any. He actually was keeping Al Queda out of Iraq - they are a different sect which he loathed.

Iran, in a similar manor, is only effecting things locally. Their weapons are not a direct threat to the US. They are threatening their neighbors. There are others paths that we can use to effect their internal politics, but we should not invade a country just because they might be developing a nuke.

Who says that already established nuclear powers should be the only ones with nukes? After the US senselessly invaded their neighbor, it only makes sense for Iran to attempt to develop armaments equivalent to those the US has.

I'm not saying that i want Iran to develop nukes. In fact, I'd be extremely happy if we took all the nukes and chucked them in the sun (ours included). But i do question the US's right to impose these rules on other countries.

 

To go with the title of this tread, you're right< Iraq is the wrong place. I'd rather fight al-queda in places like, Glendale, or Torrance, or Encino, maybe San Diego, or Ipsalanti, how about Detroit? At least we wouldn't have to send our troops overseas!