Is the discussion original topic, and yes you would be discussing the war so I guess we might as well change it to THE WAR.bhs_pirates wrote:With today's (well, yesterday's) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirmation of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?
Oh so the fact that we DID send troops in to fight Germany doesn’t matter?We did not enter WWII officially until AFTER Pearl Harbor... and still we only declared war on the Japs.
It’s not in our best interest, It’s not in our best interest?? When was the last time a terrorist flew a shampoo plan into an AMERICAN BUILDING??? Killing AMERICAN CIVILIONS??? We cannot go off correct EVERYONE, seems like you don’t have a problem trying to correct (which doesn’t seem to be happening) me.See... I dont care. Its their country, its their problems, its their responsibility to fix them. Not ours! We cannot go off correct EVERYONE (like we try). Its not in our best interest.
You know what a terrorist primary goal is?? TERROR hint: You give Osama power by talking about him?? Why not wage a war where we can free countries that are under the same hell driving idea to “destroy AMERICA”?I dont think the administration cares.
…We invaded and took out an evil regime in IRAQ… we were trying to keep the south Vietnamese free??No... 1) We both wanted countries to be a freedom beacon or what not.
2) After several years a massive stale mate ensued with no end in sight.
I’m not going to defend anything I say because I said it. I am how ever going to try to get you to “think positive” or just think. By saying he’ll be replaced by someone just like him… is negative, and he wont be just like him, they never are. They are always more foolish, or more filled with hate to plan effective attacks.So I can address each thing individually
At this point I am going to stop speaking politically. And I am likely to kill the thread so there is probably no need to read this if you don’t want to waste your time.The thing is, we arent fighting a country or a govt or what not. We are fighting and enemy that is world wide. It does NOT end. Terrorism will never end. Should we fight it? Of course. But go on a witch hunt for it? No. If it does NOT affect the US, let other countries deal with their problems.
As a strategic stand point the US really stopped witch hunting, notice how all the terrorist are coming to IRAQ to kill American troops….??? You could look at that two ways that’s what the terrorist want so they don’t have to do real planning and attack the US when the troops are in Iraq, so we should pull out. Call it like “bee’s to honey”. The trick we pulled was “bee’s to honey” to get them out of the US and get them to network together so we could root out a large vain of terrorism world wide. And that my friend is what is happening and what is accruing in Iraq currently.
The hopes to that strategy is one of time and research, where we can make the connection between the terrorist and there leaders before a second large and deadly attack accurse. It seems to be working because we haven’t had a second 9/11 attack to terrorize THIS nation.
The down side to this strategy would be that A. US troops are dying. B. That this will not put an end to the problem as a whole.
My last statement paired with the fact that the terrorist leaders that replace them will not have a greater understanding of what is accruing around them is the highlight here. By going into Iraq we can kill 3 birds with one stone. I’ll explain this.
For this strategy to accrue we have to go and invade a middle eastern country under a notion that we are not there to fight terrorist, or else the terrorist will run and hide Afghanistan for example we went in for a fight and sure enough all the big heads of Al Quada and other factions left because they knew we wanted revenge.
So we need the fish to bite if we are going to get our blood do we not…??
Invade Iraq under the notion of “WMD” and that of “adding terrorism” in the name or “Iraqi Freedom” under Saddam’s evil rain. This action is to intise* the terrorist. We all know that bin laden hated Saddam and thought poorly on him, so linking them together is what we want to make them feel insulted.
This insult will make them ban together, enlist fresh hands, and fight us. What we do in Afghanistan is somewhat meaning less now, because we are creating a raising problem in Iraq. This is due to the fact that this plan is working. With that in mind we need to take care of Iraq give it a government that is free and a government that fights terrorism. This will make Iraq look like a western culture in the Middle east as well all knows Islamic terrorist hate western culture… “women voting…??” The terrorist rage to a fellow Islamic country will divert the terrorist minds for a good while and making them no longer attack American soil. This time frame is however a questionable gap, with that being said it could be a year it could be 40. This effort to build up Iraq and let them taste freedom like we know it is the primary influence to how long it will last. So educate Iraqi’s, empower Iraqi women, and deluding Middle Eastern Islamic Fascism are the 3 primary goals for Iraq’s future role of freedom to maintain as a terrorist target.
Mean while terrorist nations like Iran are becoming angry at the US, it’s like they are jealousy that we thought Saddam was a bigger threat then they where. This act is foolish as well because on an international level it makes them look more aggressive and highly volatile state. Meaning a UN supported war if the threat rises, which means send in the Euro-Forces boys, backed by the U.S. Air Force.
It’s a magic trick that is very easy to pull off when people are anger and mindless. Make them looks one way and come at them another. By keeping the war in another country were terrorist are willing to fight keeps America safe. As its been said before, the fact that I have to repeat this and more less spell out is sorry and show not only how little faith you have in the administration but also in the minds of our Leading US military officials. And nighthawk I think those guys are your boss….
So the 3 birds with one stone?
1. Take out the evil regime that stood and add to the fire of terrorism and helped educate terrorist in the art of terror.
2. The chance to fight terrorist not wait for them.
3. Create a middle eastern country that has to protect itself from other middle eastern countries.
Yes for different reason, that would be why that state meant was a joke, I guess you don’t watch the news anymore, or you could be Hillary and be for and against it all in one sentence.Disagreeing with this war is liberal? News to me. Explain that one please.
No now we are discussing war before we were politically slamming each other.We are discussing the war.
Unsure Add-ons plz do not discuss because I have no way of telling.
1. Bush looking stupid makes this plan seem unlikely making it run smoother.
2. Losing faith with American people makes terrorist happy
3. Giving illegal aliens citizenship to make income terrorist easier to track down (I really don’t think so but hey y not)
4. Bush speaking like a religious who ha it infuriate terrorist more.
5. Bush laughing at liberals priceless
6. Bush going to Iraq unannounced recently and praising Iraqi development adds to the transfer of target, this could just be john snow doing his job so idk.
7. Chaney shooting friend in face, makes it seem like this cabinet is foolish and could not come up with this plan.
8. Given so much money to Iraq to rebuild and redevelop could fund Iraq’s future war against other middle eastern country.
9. (This one is highly, highly likely) to stop the “food for oil” program to not fun Hilleary Clintons election. MARC RICH
10. To have Saddam where we can control him.
Oh and for a war that does not have an end…? What about the “war on drugs” and the troops we have in Columbia right now, they have been there scene the 70’s it’s the forgotten American war that no one ever talks about.[/quote]