Does America have the Stomach for a New War in Iraq?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Logarock

Well, if that sort of thing starts to happen....if I gambled, I would bet that the US is going to come out of hiding with technology for this sort of attack.

If the World is ready to burn, let's get it over with but on our own soil.

We realistically haven't had the luxury for a very long time. But its a nice thought.

Some folks took a long look after WWII and realized that america must go and that it would be a much harder task than had been imagined. Long-term dedication to infiltration. Disguising the chess pieces, economic entanglement, half measure wars sold as real wars of liberation, psyop on all levels over decades having to wait several generations before the fruit emerged, economic and cultural dependency on foreign nations, programed anti procreation measures ect.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Does America have the Stomach for another WAR in Iraq??

The only ones that have have the Stomach for another WAR in Iraq are the Bush/Reagen Supporters and larger enough war mongers whom haven't learned anything.

'This from the Daily Mail...

'The battle will now rage in Baghdad': Thousands of ISIS militants march on Iraqi capital with a trademark bullet in the head for anyone who gets in their way - but will US now launch airstrikes?

Iraq's government has indicated a willingness for the US military to conduct airstrikes against radical Islamist militants

Islamist militants have taken over Iraq's second biggest city Mosul and Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit

Government forces have stalled the militants' advance near Samarra, a city just 110km (68 miles) north of Baghdad

ISIS's goal is to create a Islamic caliphate (state) - it already controls territory in eastern Syria and western/central Iraq

Today Iraq's parliament is to hold an emergency session to vote on declaring a state of emergency

Kurdish forces are in full control of Iraq's oil city of Kirkuk after the federal army abandoned their posts

Iran has sent special forces and a unit of elite troops to Iraq to assist the the Iraqi government halt the advance

Airstrikes then??

Korg.

a reply to: Logarock

I have never understood why america needs any one or nation.

I live in wheatland, miles of rolling farm land, that could feed the whole nation.

We have water shortages in places, but excess of water in other places. Replace those ugly oil tanks with water going to drought areas.

Put our people to work producing for our citizens and our country. Hell, we even create our own money.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Logarock

I have never understood why america needs any one or nation.

I live in wheatland, miles of rolling farm land, that could feed the whole nation.

We have water shortages in places, but excess of water in other places. Replace those ugly oil tanks with water going to drought areas.

Put our people to work producing for our citizens and our country. Hell, we even create our own money.

The irony is that with all the talk of one world government etc... how the worlds people have gone entirely in the opposite direction.

Korg.

Does America have the Stomach for a New War in Iraq?

Not me.
It's a waste of American lives. It's a waste of money. It's a waste of effort.
And the politicians keep screwing it up. So not another war in Iraq.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Does America have the Stomach for a New War in Iraq?

Not me.
It's a waste of American lives. It's a waste of money. It's a waste of effort.
And the politicians keep screwing it up. So not another war in Iraq.

Will you be saying that on the day LA get's nuked?

Korg.

originally posted by: MOMof3
My stomach says, WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ANOTHER WAR? We can't raise the taxes on the precious rich and the working person is one paycheck away from broke.

Even if the rich and well connected "paid" for it, it would still be unacceptable. They would pass the cost onto everyone else in the form of higher prices. They are not going to take a paycut.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Logarock

I have never understood why america needs any one or nation.

I live in wheatland, miles of rolling farm land, that could feed the whole nation.

We have water shortages in places, but excess of water in other places. Replace those ugly oil tanks with water going to drought areas.

Put our people to work producing for our citizens and our country. Hell, we even create our own money.

Well its certainly not just oil. Try finding something that is not made in China on the store shelf. Who knows how many work visas there are floating around out there as well as undocumented workers. How's about our manufacturing base being shipped overseas by our fellow americans over the last three decades. My point is that American isolationism on any level these days is something of fantasy and only measured by most in regards to war and oil. I mean Chines dog food? Really? We are neck deep in it. Our self interest is almost totally involved with the interests of other nations and economies. That cows has been out of the barn for 100years.

Does America have the stomach for another war in Iraq?

In short no, the country has no stomach for another armed conflict. The last one did not go over so well, trillions spend, thousands dead on both sides, and close to a generation lost. The cost is too high, the people can not and will not stomach another armed conflict in that area. It was a mistake to remove Sadam from power, and a mistake to arm him. It was a mistake that the USA can not afford to make a gain. The children and generations to come will be paying off this for years to come.

As I recalled the country of Iraq asked the USA to leave, and so we did. It would be rude for us to come back. And make no mistake this is going to happen in Afganistan, once the USA leaves, as the population has to decide what it wants.

The ultimate point on this, is that the people of Iraq have to make the difference and change, they have to be the ones this time to get up, and take the lead in this, to start to go on the offensive and attack and repel, or accept such. No one can do it for them.

Iraq needs to fight for Iraq. Or if they need help they can call out to the powerful and almighty United Nations. I personally don't want any more Americans dying for that country.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: MOMof3

I agree...

But who will pay for the wave after wave of terror attacks that must surely come as a result of doing nothing?

Korg.

There is a word that I absolutely hate using but feel that I have to use it today... :

Pftttttttt... yup... that's the one...

Terror attacks will only happen on the countries that the puppet string holders decide that those attacks should happen...

No fear for so called "Western" civilised countries unless a false flag is needed to organize another "terror" attack to create another war

Kindest respects

Rodinus

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Iraq needs to fight for Iraq. Or if they need help they can call out to the powerful and almighty United Nations. I personally don't want any more Americans dying for that country.

The problem is that there are three different Iraqs. There's the Shia South, the Sunni middle and the Kurdish North. The North is now a separate state in all but name. If Maliki wants support from the Peshmerga he's going to have meet their demands. The South is effectively in the pocket of Iran and that's where Maliki's main support is. It's the centre where this will be won. The Sunnis there have been badly treated for various reasons since 2003. The Surge placated them but Maliki turned the clock back and has sidelined them, leading to the rise of these whackjobs. Maliki is not the man to try and bring the three Iraqs together.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: MOMof3

I agree...

But who will pay for the wave after wave of terror attacks that must surely come as a result of doing nothing?

Korg.

Wave after wave of terrorist attacks? From who? We didn't get wave after wave of terrorist attacks during the bush years while the iraq fiasco was going down and we won't get wave after wave of them now. Stop living in fear, and stop watching 24, it's not a parallel to real life at all.

a reply to: Logarock

I know all our problems. I went into the workforce in 1968 and have seen many changes on the job and political. Solutions that work for us is not the same as isolationism.

Oil is a dying dinosaur and resources, i.e. water which is needed for food production, is the new gold. We have plenty of both, for the time being, if we prepare.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: MOMof3

I agree...

But who will pay for the wave after wave of terror attacks that must surely come as a result of doing nothing?

Korg.

Wave after wave of terrorist attacks? From who? We didn't get wave after wave of terrorist attacks during the bush years while the iraq fiasco was going down and we won't get wave after wave of them now. Stop living in fear, and stop watching 24, it's not a parallel to real life at all.

Aha... had your head in the sand again have we?

Four decades of US terror attacks listed and detailed

The Global Terrorism Database has recorded terror attacks across the world - with data from 1970 covering up to the end of 2011. It's a huge dataset: over 104,000 attacks, including around 2,600 in the US - and its collection is funded by an agency of the US government: the Science and Technology Directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security through a Center of Excellence program based at the University of Maryland.

Agreed the number of attacks has gone down significantly... but what you need to do is take into account the fatality rate and type of attack.

I guarantee that we will see a nuclear terrorist attack if not in the near future certainly in our lifetimes.

And 24 has some rather startling parallels such as predicting a black president that was fighting for a health bill... years before Obama was even on the scene..... Or a president that consorted with terrorists at the known loss of american lives to secure oil..... etc...

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: MOMof3

I agree...

But who will pay for the wave after wave of terror attacks that must surely come as a result of doing nothing?

Korg.

Wave after wave of terrorist attacks? From who? We didn't get wave after wave of terrorist attacks during the bush years while the iraq fiasco was going down and we won't get wave after wave of them now. Stop living in fear, and stop watching 24, it's not a parallel to real life at all.

Aha... had your head in the sand again have we?

Four decades of US terror attacks listed and detailed

The Global Terrorism Database has recorded terror attacks across the world - with data from 1970 covering up to the end of 2011. It's a huge dataset: over 104,000 attacks, including around 2,600 in the US - and its collection is funded by an agency of the US government: the Science and Technology Directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security through a Center of Excellence program based at the University of Maryland.

Agreed the number of attacks has gone down significantly... but what you need to do is take into account the fatality rate and type of attack.

I guarantee that we will see a nuclear terrorist attack if not in the near future certainly in our lifetimes.

And 24 has some rather startling parallels such as predicting a black president that was fighting for a health bill... years before Obama was even on the scene..... Or a president that consorted with terrorists at the known loss of american lives to secure oil..... etc...

Korg.

2600 attacks in the USA???

Boy oHHH boy are we other completely stupid people around the world completely ignorant or what???

Anyone care to detail these 2600 attacks that the MSM did not care to mention or that we have not heard about here on ATS???

Kindest respects

Rodinus

originally posted by: Rodinus

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
a reply to: MOMof3

I agree...

But who will pay for the wave after wave of terror attacks that must surely come as a result of doing nothing?

Korg.

Wave after wave of terrorist attacks? From who? We didn't get wave after wave of terrorist attacks during the bush years while the iraq fiasco was going down and we won't get wave after wave of them now. Stop living in fear, and stop watching 24, it's not a parallel to real life at all.

Aha... had your head in the sand again have we?

Four decades of US terror attacks listed and detailed

The Global Terrorism Database has recorded terror attacks across the world - with data from 1970 covering up to the end of 2011. It's a huge dataset: over 104,000 attacks, including around 2,600 in the US - and its collection is funded by an agency of the US government: the Science and Technology Directorate of the US Department of Homeland Security through a Center of Excellence program based at the University of Maryland.

Agreed the number of attacks has gone down significantly... but what you need to do is take into account the fatality rate and type of attack.

I guarantee that we will see a nuclear terrorist attack if not in the near future certainly in our lifetimes.

And 24 has some rather startling parallels such as predicting a black president that was fighting for a health bill... years before Obama was even on the scene..... Or a president that consorted with terrorists at the known loss of american lives to secure oil..... etc...

Korg.

2600 attacks in the USA???

Boy oHHH boy are we other completely stupid people around the world completely ignorant or what???

Anyone care to detail these 2600 attacks that the MSM did not care to mention or that we have not heard about here on ATS???

Kindest respects

Rodinus

You can get access to the data by scrolling down to data summary here...

GTD Data summary

Or you may request a download of the entire database here...

Download the GTD or Contact GTD Team

Peace,

Korg.

It is possible. The 70's were very violent times with protests against Viet Nam, The Draft, civil rights issues, political party upheavals, the Cold War.

originally posted by: MOMof3
It is possible. The 70's were very violent times with protests against Viet Nam, The Draft, civil rights issues, political party upheavals, the Cold War.

Exactly... which is why it's important to take into account the scale and type of attack here. The truth is fatality rate per attack has gone up this trend is basically stating that the attacks that do occur are far more deadly and widespread.

What's more damaging 2000 terrorist attacks that over 30 years kills 10'000 people or one big one that kills 2-3 million?

Korg.