Good news from Iraq

[H]

Some people either don't want to get it, or maybe just can't understand.

 

Radical Islam has declared war on us.

 

Iraq was not a bastion of radical Islam before we invaded. Through our stupidity, we have created the very thing we claim to be fighting against--a radicalized, unstable Muslim population in the heart of the middle east.

 

They don't care whether they fight us here or Iraq or anywhere else... they just want to fight us and go out in a blaze of glory as martyrs.

 

Given the choice, I would vastly prefer to help them become martyrs thousands of miles away from my home and family at the hands of trained professionals equipped with the best weaponry in the history of the world, as opposed to allowing them to invade a local school and systematically blow away innocent American student after innocent student for our gluttonous news services to broadcast around the world.

 

You tell me which you'd prefer?

 

So, are these terrorists who resort to car bombs and IEDs that kill and mame innocent civilians in Iraq just being polite by not attacking us here in the U.S.? This whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" thing is bull. If they had the capability, you'd better believe they would be attacking us here (there have been attempts, unsuccessful thankfully). Why would any would-be terrorist choose to attack the heavily-armed U.S. military in Iraq when they could simply waltz through our porous borders and inflict their mayhem and murder on innocent American civilians? That would truly impact our way of life here and would achieve their ultimate goal of terrorizing American citizens. How does our military presence in Iraq prevent "the terrorists" from coming to our country? Al Qaeda is certainly regrouping in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm sure there are terrorist training camps there--how is our involvement in Iraq helping to keep those guys from coming over here?

 

"we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"--nice soundbite, unfortunately not very convincing.

[Fastbreak]

So how would you fix things H?

[H]

So how would you fix things H?

 

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=2368742#post2368742

[Sting]

I never stated that I knew more than you or anyone about the "war" but I do know we shouldn't be there in the first place. And the conflict there is not something we're going to solve.

This one of the problems with the anti-war movement IMO... The debate still rages about whether we should have went to war or not. That should have been debated and argued 4 years ago. Now the fact is, no matter if you like it or not, we are at war in Iraq. We can't change the fact that we did go to war. The debate now is what do we do? Do we just drop are weapns and leave? Do we have a responsibility since we did go to war to help them rebuild? Do we increase the troop levels? Does the war escalate to Iran?

[rockmom]

I am so tired of the implication by some, and the outright statement of others, that because I disagree about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, I am not patriotic. That's just flat out wrong. I don't really take too much personally, but I can tell you this....I take it personally when I read such posts here on BGP, or have such comments flung at me in conversation.

 

I make no apologies for disagreeing with going into Iraq. However, I have made many, MANY posts stating that now that we're there, we cannot leave. I made a statement before the war that those who thought "Shock and Awe" would be a "quickie" war were wrong. I said then that we would be mired down for decades in a situation we are unprepared to resolve. I still feel I'm 100% correct.

 

Does that make me "anti-soldier"? Heck no! Soldiers do their jobs. I hope they believe in what they are doing, because that's the only way they can achieve their goals. But I do NOT, believe in the war. That doesn't mean I want our troops to fail, and to imply such is just enraging to me. I realize many of you are servicemen now, or ex-servicemen. I appreciate your service, because whether there or here, then or now, your service is a service to the country I love. But that does NOT mean I have to agree with the reasons you are there. It does mean that I fully support you in achieving the goals our administration sets out for you. But I don't support the administration for putting you in a position that they didn't prepare adequately for.

 

There are just way too many points on which I disagree with the Iraqi War to list, and most of you know what I feel anyway. I won't beat that dead horse. But I will NOT sit by and watch good people maligned as traitors to their country, or in someway intellectually inferior because they do not support the war.

[Hatz]

I am blessed to know a lot of people. I can honestly say I have never met anyone who loves or wants war. Fortunately, I also know a lot of people who accept when it is time to roll up our sleeves and get busy.

 

Overall, as a culture, we've become too soft.

 

I am genuinely concerned that it will take something much worse than the events of 9/11 for us to wake up and realize we can't negotiate peace, go home from or ignore the enemy at our door. They will accept nothing less than our destruction or their own martyrdom or both.

 

I hate war, but this is a fight we can't avoid.

 

What's your better plan?

 

 

I've thought of one thing I've yet to see from this administration. A move on the Saudi's, the United Arab Immigrants, and others who hold large wealth that seems to fund these terrorist groups. Cut them off. Seize and Freeze assets. If you cut off the money that brings the supplies then you starve them out. No one follows the money anymore.

 

It's always puzzled me how almost all the hijackers and Bin Laden are Saudi's but no one thought to invade there. No one thought to financially leverage them.

 

Diplomacy is a very powerful tool if used correctly.

[HHSDad]

I've thought of one thing I've yet to see from this administration. A move on the Saudi's, the United Arab Immigrants, and others who hold large wealth that seems to fund these terrorist groups. Cut them off. Seize and Freeze assets. If you cut off the money that brings the supplies then you starve them out. No one follows the money anymore.

 

It's always puzzled me how almost all the hijackers and Bin Laden are Saudi's but no one thought to invade there. No one thought to financially leverage them.

 

Diplomacy is a very powerful tool if used correctly.

Problem is we need their oil a lot more than they need our money. We have no ability to financially leverage the Saudis. They would just become friends with the Chinese and then where would we be?

[Hatz]

Problem is we need their oil a lot more than they need our money. We have no ability to financially leverage the Saudis. They would just become friends with the Chinese and then where would we be?

 

 

I understand that. But why do we think a war in Iraq will solve it all if the financiers (Saudis) are left alone and unpunished? The Saudis sit atop a precarious seat of power. The masses aren't that pleased with the secular lifestyles of their rich and famous. The Islamic revolution could visit there. If it weren't for the US presence there, a revolution just might overthrow those families like Bin Laden's. If that happened where would they be? They'd be drying up the funds to terror and willing to take a stand.

 

All of this is conjecture on my part but I really haven't seen anybody suggesting the need to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in the 9/11 attacks.

[Habib]

I understand that. But why do we think a war in Iraq will solve it all if the financiers (Saudis) are left alone and unpunished? The Saudis sit atop a precarious seat of power. The masses aren't that pleased with the secular lifestyles of their rich and famous. The Islamic revolution could visit there. If it weren't for the US presence there, a revolution just might overthrow those families like Bin Laden's. If that happened where would they be? They'd be drying up the funds to terror and willing to take a stand.

 

All of this is conjecture on my part but I really haven't seen anybody suggesting the need to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in the 9/11 attacks.

 

:confused: Because some of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Are you certain the Saudi government funded the 9/11 attacks? Terrorist groups get their money from everything from the selling of opium to credit card fraud, we can't exactly freeze those assets.

[HHSDad]

I understand that. But why do we think a war in Iraq will solve it all if the financiers (Saudis) are left alone and unpunished? The Saudis sit atop a precarious seat of power. The masses aren't that pleased with the secular lifestyles of their rich and famous. The Islamic revolution could visit there. If it weren't for the US presence there, a revolution just might overthrow those families like Bin Laden's. If that happened where would they be? They'd be drying up the funds to terror and willing to take a stand.

 

All of this is conjecture on my part but I really haven't seen anybody suggesting the need to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in the 9/11 attacks.

True dat! I believe that the Saudi kingdom will collapse within a year of Iran taking Iraq.

[Hatz]

:confused: Because some of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Are you certain the Saudi government funded the 9/11 attacks? Terrorist groups get their money from everything from the selling of opium to credit card fraud, we can't exactly freeze those assets.

 

 

Actually, if memory serves, 19 out of 20 were. I don't think that is a coincidence.

 

I didn't say that the government did but prominent Saudi families have left their money mark on a lot of terrorist activity including 9/11. (sorry if the impression I gave was the government) Those are the same families that CONTROL (all caps for a reason) the government and the nation because of their wealth. We kid ourselves to believe that even "friendly governments" are actual democracies. Terrorist groups get their money in many ways but those you cited are probably pennies to the dollars coming from established oil families like Bin Laden's.

[Fastbreak]

I am so tired of the implication by some, and the outright statement of others, that because I disagree about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, I am not patriotic. That's just flat out wrong. I don't really take too much personally, but I can tell you this....I take it personally when I read such posts here on BGP, or have such comments flung at me in conversation.

I'm not entirely certain to whom you refer with this statement. But just in the event that I happen to be one of the posters who stir these feelings within you, I want to set the record straight.

 

I have never stated nor implied that anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq is unpatriotic... simply because they disagree. I have however stated, implied and outright accused certain politicians, media, and entertainers of literal acts of treason, as it would have been defined in 1942 and prior. For people to be blessed to be in positions of authority, or with a voice capable of reaching every corner of the world to misrepresent, spin and outright lie about our troops and military efforts because they disagree for purely political (read: self-serving) reasons is abominable. Many of them would have found themselves behind bars, or at the end of a rope had they done the same things under F.D.R.

 

You have every right to disagree, dissent or otherwise make your displeasure known. When it crosses the line into aiding, abetting, providing encouragement or comfort to our enemies, it goes beyond the right to freedom of speech and public discourse into the realm of irresponsibility at best, and treason at its worst.

 

Rail on against the war and Bush. Though I may disagree, I salute you as a proud American. But please allow me the same consideration when I point out egocentric, power hungry, conniving politicians.

[Hatz]

I'm not entirely certain to whom you refer with this statement. But just in the event that I happen to be one of the posters who stir these feelings within you, I want to set the record straight.

 

I have never stated nor implied that anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq is unpatriotic... simply because they disagree. I have however stated, implied and outright accused certain politicians, media, and entertainers of literal acts of treason, as it would have been defined in 1942 and prior. For people to be blessed to be in positions of authority, or with a voice capable of reaching every corner of the world to misrepresent, spin and outright lie about our troops and military efforts because they disagree for purely political (read: self-serving) reasons is abominable. Many of them would have found themselves behind bars, or at the end of a rope had they done the same things under F.D.R.

 

You have every right to disagree, dissent or otherwise make your displeasure known. When it crosses the line into aiding, abetting, providing encouragement or comfort to our enemies, it goes beyond the right to freedom of speech and public discourse into the realm of irresponsibility at best, and treason at its worst.

 

Rail on against the war and Bush. Though I may disagree, I salute you as a proud American. But please allow me the same consideration when I point out egocentric, power hungry, conniving politicians.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity would you label George B. McClellan a traitor to the Federal government in 1864? He ran against Lincoln with the express purpose to undermine the war effort and get back at Lincoln for his removal.

 

I too think that some of these you mention are deserving of being booted out but it's not like all of this is totally new. Many times Congressmen and people of note have acted less than noble during wartime.

[rockmom]

I'm not entirely certain to whom you refer with this statement. But just in the event that I happen to be one of the posters who stir these feelings within you, I want to set the record straight.

 

I have never stated nor implied that anyone who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq is unpatriotic... simply because they disagree. I have however stated, implied and outright accused certain politicians, media, and entertainers of literal acts of treason, as it would have been defined in 1942 and prior. For people to be blessed to be in positions of authority, or with a voice capable of reaching every corner of the world to misrepresent, spin and outright lie about our troops and military efforts because they disagree for purely political (read: self-serving) reasons is abominable. Many of them would have found themselves behind bars, or at the end of a rope had they done the same things under F.D.R.

 

You have every right to disagree, dissent or otherwise make your displeasure known. When it crosses the line into aiding, abetting, providing encouragement or comfort to our enemies, it goes beyond the right to freedom of speech and public discourse into the realm of irresponsibility at best, and treason at its worst.

 

Rail on against the war and Bush. Though I may disagree, I salute you as a proud American. But please allow me the same consideration when I point out egocentric, power hungry, conniving politicians.

 

I'm wondering where in this post (below) you made it clear that you weren't railing against people like me, but were focused squarely on politicians, etc.

 

How did patriotism, allegiance and pride in country become nothing more than hollow jingoism?

 

I am disgusted with the elites who sniff at such mundane concepts as patriotism while riding upon the waves of freedom paid for with the very blood, sweat and deprivation of genuine American patriots. It's time for Americans to love America again

[Fastbreak]

I'm wondering where in this post (below) you made it clear that you weren't railing against people like me, but were focused squarely on politicians, etc.

Ooops... :sssh: Are you an "elite"?

 

 

Sorry... :thumb: