It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military opinions and war experience

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It changed everything for me.


Everything I am today, is because of my experience in the military. I credit that institution with giving me the desire, the ability and the means to excel academically. And I would be greatly remiss if I did not also give big credit to my leaders. They did everything in the world to promote me and my interests in the world of education. That is one reason I did so well. It was my great honor and privlege to serve under such outstanding men and women.




posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is an interesting thread. I'd say its headed towards possibly being one of the year's most read. And its early, yet.

Thanks Kidfinger. We needed a forum for vets to hash this out. (Tho everyone is welcome)


If I had a Bud Light, I'd raise it to all of you fellow vets out there, right now. That means you, too, Ed and Grady. I just wish Doc Horacid would join in. And Skadi_the_evil_elf.

For those who don't know this, Doc is a Vietnam veteran, and a POW.

Gulp.

Hat's off to him, for sure.


Skadi, a female soldier who went in right after I got out, served TWO(Godforsaken tours, my words) in Saudi Arabia. Hers is a powerful voice that we should all hear.

For women, even men, there is no place in all the world like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is biblical. It is powerful. And that's a problem.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
This is an interesting thread. I'd say its headed towards possibly being one of the year's most read. And its early, yet.

Thanks Kidfinger. We needed a forum for vets to hash this out. (Tho everyone is welcome)








Im just glad this is going so well. Its not often we can discuss politics without the whining and fighting.

Thanks everyone for keeping this civil
Another page of mature people searching for an answer. This is how it should be.


BTW, the Doc is now a banned member......


[edit on 5/29/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I took part-time classes (after work) through Austin Peay State University and made grades like a MOFO. I got out and went into college with a high B average. Something that would have ASTOUNDED my teachers in high school.
It changed everything for me.


Sounds a bit like home to me.


Originally posted by EastCoastKid
If I had a Bud Light, I'd raise it to all of you fellow vets out there, right now. That means you, too, Ed and Grady.



Not a Bud Light, but a Miller Lite, and I am buying the first round!




Ok guys I see your point, the war was under what you feel to be false pretenses and by that you mean WMD. Fair enough.


Now many of you think of me as a new-con and I laugh at the thought, I am a fundamentalist Christian so to speak ---- Das Book, that IS the authority to me and the Word of God is my guide but that is another thread.


Since it is civil, and I do admit that I can understand your reasoning as to why you feel the war is wrong, will you at least humor me for a second and just on the outside chance check my last post here and tell me 'why' I am wrong?


Why Edsinger Feels the War in Iraq is a legit one



You see, its not about WMD for me, it is an assault on the West in my opinion and the leader of the West is none other than the Spoiled United States. I do feel that we have been blessed beyond belief up to a few years ago and that blessing is starting to evaporate. Now the reasons I feel this are not relevant to this conversation so I will not elaborate but those of you that know me already know the answer to that anyway.


The Question is, if not Iraq now, what in 5-10 years? Where would you suggest? Saudi? Well I really don't want it and don't want our troops there.

See Iraq was logical, it had the mad dictator but keep in mind that Saddam was not a religious bigot, he had a Christian as one of his most trusted circle.

See, I feel that the US had a responsibility to interceded in things before things got out of hand, Israel was a mess and was an extreme tinderbox. Now with Arafat out of the way, maybe there can be progress.

From a military point of view Iraq was the logical choice and from a point of what 'Arab' country had the best chance for Democracy to succeed, again we are left with Iraq.

I do truly think that the US along with all the other countries fell for Saddam's last big lie, that he had them. Personally I do think he still did and got them out of country but the volume would have to be small, but deep down, its moot.


Iran was not a choice, Saudi Arabia was not for sure, Syria? Well lets be honest, Iraq with its oil was a place that needed to be stable, for the world economy not just the US. Europe and Asia require Middle Eastern oil much more than North America, so you figure it out.

Stability economical wise, troops on the ground to at last give these people a chance at some type of freedom, and troops on the ground to draw attention for the radical piss ants to come martyr themselves.

I think the Iraqi people voting in the fashion that they did says a whole lot, remember Rome wasn't built in a day....



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


Now many of you think of me as a new-con and I laugh at the thought, I am a fundamentalist Christian so to speak ---- Das Book, that IS the authority to me and the Word of God is my guide but that is another thread.


Ed, I have to admit, since we all decided to behave like adults on this thread, my opinion of you has changed quite abit. No, I dont think you are a NeoCon, but you are still to 'right' for me





Since it is civil, and I do admit that I can understand your reasoning as to why you feel the war is wrong, will you at least humor me for a second and just on the outside chance check my last post here and tell me 'why' I am wrong?


Well, the thing that I dont understand is why Saddam is picked to be made an example of when he had nothing to do with any of the attacks mentioned in that post. Saddam was not involved in any of them. To me its kind of like living on a street with one real big bully, and a sneaky little teenager. The sneaky teen throws some rocks through the next door neighbors car window and the big bully gets the blame. Yeah, he was a big bully and a punk as well, BUT he didnt throw the rocks through the window.

Also, I will let you in on a little secret. If Bush had went after OBL and not stopped in Tora Bora,or untill OBL was caught, and then invaded Iraq under the pretenses that Saddam was the big bully who needed a slap, I might have supported that. But he left a job half finished. I know we still have people pounding the ground for OBL, but Bush lost focus along the way and has even admitted that OBL is not his top priority anymore. (???!!!???) I just cant follow that logic.





You see, its not about WMD for me, it is an assault on the West in my opinion and the leader of the West is none other than the Spoiled United States.


I agree that there was an assault on the west, but I think that OBL was responsible for it. He should be made to pay before anything else transpires.




The Question is, if not Iraq now, what in 5-10 years? Where would you suggest? Saudi? Well I really don't want it and don't want our troops there.


Well, aside from OBL, N Korea for starters. I would fully support an invasion and an all around arse kicking of lil' Kim.



See Iraq was logical, it had the mad dictator but keep in mind that Saddam was not a religious bigot, he had a Christian as one of his most trusted circle.


I think it was logical, but not for those reasons. It was the place in the ME that would put up the least resistance to American presence. It was the only choice for a simple invasion. I dont think Bush intends to ever pull out of Iraq. We are building three new huge bases there. Sounds kind of permanent to me.



See, I feel that the US had a responsibility to interceded in things before things got out of hand, Israel was a mess and was an extreme tinderbox. Now with Arafat out of the way, maybe there can be progress.


Ahhhh, here is where the right and the left differ. Personally, I dont think we have that right. I also think we should wall up our boarders, but that is for another thread.




I think the Iraqi people voting in the fashion that they did says a whole lot, remember Rome wasn't built in a day....


Wel Ed, you do realize that the vote was just to pick a counsil to form their new gov?(No sarcasm intended) If the form of gov picked is a theocracy much like Iran, will we be any better off in the ME? to me, it seems that Iraq in a theocracy or under Saddam equals not much difference in terms of American politics. They will both be agianst what was originally intended to be established as a result of the war.





[edit on 5/30/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Ed, I have to admit, since we all decided to behave like adults on this thread, my opinion of you has changed quite abit. No, I dont think you are a NeoCon, but you are still to 'right' for me


Oh then we can 100% agree, them NeoCons are to liberal for me anyway.





Originally posted by Kidfinger
Well, the thing that I dont understand is why Saddam is picked to be made an example of when he had nothing to do with any of the attacks mentioned in that post. Saddam was not involved in any of them. To me its kind of like living on a street with one real big bully, and a sneaky little teenager. The sneaky teen throws some rocks through the next door neighbors car window and the big bully gets the blame. Yeah, he was a big bully and a punk as well, BUT he didnt throw the rocks through the window.


Well I do think that he had something to do with Ok City...at least by proxy and the proof is there that he was planning attacks or helping with the planning of attacks on US interests. Hell he tried to kill Bush Sr. have you forgotten that one? He tried to have an ex-President killed? Why? Well Bush Sr. made the mother of all Battles into the mother of all ass whippings.




Originally posted by Kidfinger
Also, I will let you in on a little secret. If Bush had went after OBL and not stopped in Tora Bora,or untill OBL was caught, and then invaded Iraq under the pretenses that Saddam was the big bully who needed a slap, I might have supported that. But he left a job half finished. I know we still have people pounding the ground for OBL, but Bush lost focus along the way and has even admitted that OBL is not his top priority anymore. (???!!!???) I just cant follow that logic.


Don't think for one minute that Bush doesn't want that son of Bitch. But is he willing to go into Pakistan to get him? IS he even alive? We don't know. What I think would be funny is that if the POS is dead and the scum followers don't even know it. I am not sure what is up there but I do know that we didn't give up hunting him at all, hell who knows, he might make a trip to Iraq to support the troops.....Militarily OBL is not a 'important' target, he is an emotional one.





Originally posted by KidfingerI agree that there was an assault on the west, but I think that OBL was responsible for it. He should be made to pay before anything else transpires.


Oh he will pay, he will be quite rewarded in eternity. He will get his trust me.

He did not start the assault on the west, that started at the end of the Cold War.....but it was not confronted until after 911. Face it, the war is in their front yard not ours. Your kids are reasonably safe at this point, them terrorists or whatever are martyring themselves everyday.

Remember the Pre-911 video games? The enemy was even 'terrorists or drug lords'.......seems many saw this coming, finally the have awakened the sleeping Giant.




Originally posted by KidfingerWell, aside from OBL, N Korea for starters. I would fully support an invasion and an all around arse kicking of lil' Kim.


Well I do not support an invasion. The people there are so out of touch with reality that they could care less, they want their bellies full. If there was a case for 'offing' someone and his cronies, I believe this would be it. In my opinion an invasion is out, nothing to gain from it imho.




Originally posted by Kidfinger
I think it was logical, but not for those reasons. It was the place in the ME that would put up the least resistance to American presence. It was the only choice for a simple invasion. I dont think Bush intends to ever pull out of Iraq. We are building three new huge bases there. Sounds kind of permanent to me.



Well of course you are correct in that it WAS the logical target. As for bases, I do think we will have a small presence there but not a "Germany" type. The infrastructure we are building there is nothing compared to what we had in Saudi and Qatar.




Originally posted by KidfingerAhhhh, here is where the right and the left differ. Personally, I dont think we have that right. I also think we should wall up our boarders, but that is for another thread.



Yes another thread indeed. The ol world policemen thread huh?




Originally posted by KidfingerWel Ed, you do realize that the vote was just to pick a counsil to form their new gov?(No sarcasm intended) If the form of gov picked is a theocracy much like Iran, will we be any better off in the ME? to me, it seems that Iraq in a theocracy or under Saddam equals not much difference in terms of American politics. They will both be agianst what was originally intended to be established as a result of the war.


Well self determination is one thing, but if you look at the so called 'checks and balances' that can not happen. The Kurds will see to it. It can not be like the US in no way shape or fashion, but they can design their own freedoms and laws. Just keep in mind that it is the population that is doing it as a whole not one man.

Think of it like this,


America you have democrats/republicans/independents

In Iraq you will have Kurds/#es/Sunnis

They just need to quite killing each other and that day will come, it did for the Balkans.

Also keep in mind how the constitution there is written. It sort of reminds me of the US, you have a house that is based on population, and a Senate on states....the 2 prevent the Texas, California, New York, and Florida from controlling the destiny of the country. Even Wyoming has an important say in matters.

Btw side note: If the State of Texas decides it wants to, it can divide into 5 states and therefore have 10 senators. The problem is that who would lay claim to the Alamo? This was a condition of surrender at Appomattox.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Im just glad this is going so well.


I have never seen a thread so long and so absent vitriol. I commend everyone who has contributed for keeping a cool head. It's not easy when it comes to such a heavy issue.



BTW, the Doc is now a banned member......


No way, man!
That sux! I guess that xplains why he hasn't shown up to harass me lately. He was great for that.
To his great credit, though, he was always great humoured. At least to me.
His thoughts on this would have been valuable b/c of his experiences.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

But is he willing to go into Pakistan to get him? IS he even alive? We don't know.




Well, the way Musharref was cooperating at the beginning, Bush should have taken advantage of this and ammassed troops along both boardes effectivly cutting off any retreat. However, recently Musharref has had a change of heart and I believe even this would not be an option for Bush now. I just think he had some real bad stratigest as well as advise when it comes to that one.


What I think would be funny is that if the POS is dead and the scum followers don't even know it.








Well I do not support an invasion. The people there are so out of touch with reality that they could care less, they want their bellies full. If there was a case for 'offing' someone and his cronies, I believe this would be it. In my opinion an invasion is out, nothing to gain from it imho.


It seems to me that N.K. is the biggest threat to America and her interest at the moment, and has been for a while. They are the only country who has openly threatened us with a Nuke attack and are capable of carrying it out. That in itself is the main reason I thought you might support this with your previous cold war experience.




Well of course you are correct in that it WAS the logical target. As for bases, I do think we will have a small presence there but not a "Germany" type. The infrastructure we are building there is nothing compared to what we had in Saudi and Qatar.


True, our presence as far as permanent bases go is not near what it is in the placs you mentioned, but I still dont like the fact that we are building those bases for our troops when we are supposed to be winding this down.






Think of it like this,


America you have democrats/republicans/independents

In Iraq you will have Kurds/#es/Sunnis


I hadnt thought of it like that before. However, as you say, they have to stop the killings first. I dont think America would get very far if the Senators and govoners had shoot outs and car bombs before every session.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by KidfingerIt seems to me that N.K. is the biggest threat to America and her interest at the moment, and has been for a while. They are the only country who has openly threatened us with a Nuke attack and are capable of carrying it out. That in itself is the main reason I thought you might support this with your previous cold war experience.


Oh I do think we need to do something, something more hardliner should have been done in the 90's. It is just that an invasion will not accomplish a whole lot. The North Koreans do not hate Kim as the Iraqi's did Saddam. It would be a complete mess. We don't need troops on the ground to hold it cause what is there to hold? No, if it comes to it, a Balkans Style campaign will suffice.

As for the threats, do me a favor, look up the SM3 Missile .......it is a ABM based on a Tico Cruiser. Its "In testing". How much you want to bet that its "In testing" in the Sea of Japan? There was a reason BUSH instructed the DoD to have an On line BMD no latter than Dec 2004. It will not stop even the Chinese, but will most likely stop the North Koreans, then of course if that happened we definitely would not want troops in the Korean Glasslands.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Before I speak to your questions above, I just thot I'd make a few comments here:


Originally posted by edsinger
Oh then we can 100% agree, them NeoCons are to liberal for me anyway.


Nice to see we agree on that. Those of you unfamiliar with their genesis should really check into it. The Neo Conservative movement began on the left side of the aisle. When they became overtly sociopathic in their rhetoric and desires, the Democrats basically showed them the door. With the rise of the Republican movement in the early '90's they latched onto the GOP, to our great detriment.



Originally posted by Edsinger:
Well Bush Sr. made the mother of all Battles into the mother of all ass whippings.


Ain't that the truth!
No disrespect to our troops who took part in this last invasion; but, we kinda cleared the path back then. As in thoroughly crushing the world's 4th largest Army like a bug. Another good scenario: We defanged the vipor. Donald Rumsfeld really came into it late in the game with his 'shock and awe' rhetoric. I think we have Powell and Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf to thank for that great pummeling.



Originally posted by: Edsinger:
Don't think for one minute that Bush doesn't want that son of Bitch. But is he willing to go into Pakistan to get him? IS he even alive? We don't know.


No. We're not about to go into Pakistan and treat them the way we should. Despite what so many think, Pakistan should've been higher up on the list than Iraq.
I won't get into the whys of that here. That's another thread altogether.

On the OBL dead alive question: I, personally, think he's dead. Musharaff & others said as much a few years back. He is being used for propaganda purposes. Think for a moment on how effective that is.. say his name and people's hair stands up like it does on the back of my pit bull's neck when someone or something she doesn't like is near her or me.


Originally posted by KidfingerWell, aside from OBL, N Korea for starters. I would fully support an invasion and an all around arse kicking of lil' Kim.


I personally believe we need to pull our troops out of South Korea, and pronto. There is no good reason for them to be there at this point. For what? A "speedbump" in an attack from the North? To me, keeping them in that position is completely unacceptable.
We should bring them home to train them for mid-east rotation. That would ease some of the pressure off the Guard and Reserves, not to mention propping up our local encomies, rather than that of S. Korea.

At this point, if the North does flip its lid and invade the South, we can let our Navy boys and girls do what they do best - fry their a$$ from their ships. In that way, we don't have anyone on the ground to worry about. Sorry, (to some of you), I know that's hardcore, but defense IS hardcore.


Originally posted by Kidfinger
I dont think Bush intends to ever pull out of Iraq. We are building three new huge bases there. Sounds kind of permanent to me.


I agree. That is the reality. The question is (at this point), how many troops will we have to leave there? Hopefully the number can be decreased significantly as the Iraqi police and military forces grow in force and capability.

Despite your position on the merits of our presence in that country, I think we can all agree, since we're over there, Iraq beats the hell out of Saudi Arabia. For a number of reasons.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Despite your position on the merits of our presence in that country, I think we can all agree, since we're over there, Iraq beats the hell out of Saudi Arabia. For a number of reasons.


Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq? I was under the impression that Iraq had a larger army and the US was pretty much responsible for protecting the house of Saud. Seems like Saudi would have been an even bigger cake walk for our boys.

With that being said, I do think that since we are in Iraq, it will do no one any good unless we finish what we started. But what we started is finished. The only reason insugent chicken #s are still attacking is because we are still there. Everything else we set out to do is done.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Not a Bud Light, but a Miller Lite, and I am buying the first round!


I'll take that Miller Lite, Ed, and the next round's on me.


That'd be good right now... Nuthin like a beer buzz early in the morning/day.



You see, its not about WMD for me, it is an assault on the West in my opinion and the leader of the West is none other than the Spoiled United States.


Where you and I differ, I think, is in our opinion of who actually started all of this (9-11). And who became an easy patsy. I am of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was marked for extinction long ago - before the Gulf War. This had to do with the whole PNAC agenda (which was a plan that would have to span through coming years). Things like re-shaping the middle east cannot happen over night. In hindesight, I see the Gulf War as having played out in three specific stages - 1. Gulf War (smashing Saddam's military capabilities completely), 2. Sanctions (to destroy his country's inner capabilities/infrastructure and to keep his 'evil dicatator' image alive and burning in the mind of the world, sew him in with the no-fly zones), and 3. The invasion and occupation (after everything of his was weakened to such a fragile state). The problem is thus: the Iraqi people are NOT in any way shape or form happy about the way we went about this, b/c they have suffered TREMENDOUSLY in the process. Those sanctions didn't hurt Saddam at all.

Now, if we had gone all the way during the Gulf War, as we all WISHED, I think things would have been a HELLUVA lot different. They really did hate Saddam with a passion, and they were much more friendly to the West, in general. We were all shocked when it was 'over.' None of us expected it to just end there, like it did.

The tragedy was, we had the right number of troops and equipment over there at the time, to get that job done. You cannot occupy a country and establish security without the right number of forces. One of the biggest problems, to me, and sources of anger in all this is, IF you are going to send our troops to do a job, than make DAMN sure they have everything they need to successfully complete the mission! Far too many of our troops have lost their lives unecessarily due to PISS POOR PLANNING!


Edsinger:

Now with Arafat out of the way, maybe there can be progress.


Let's hope so.

Edsinger:


I do truly think that the US along with all the other countries fell for Saddam's last big lie


You see, I saw it as a big bluff. I mean, (at the time, taking into account the disrepair of his military & infrastructure) if you think about it, the man ruled over the world's second largest supply of oil. He had very real enemies on all sides. It was strategic for him. And a lot of his neighbors did fear him b/c of it.

Edsinger


I think the Iraqi people voting in the fashion that they did says a whole lot, remember Rome wasn't built in a day....


All I can say is I hope for their sakes, for the world's sake, that stability can be achieved at some point, and the people of Iraq can once again become a part of the world community and regain their so long ago affluence and excellence. Their talents and abilities as a people are so often forgotten or discounted.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq?


MUCH different. Saudi Arabia is the home of two of the Islamic world's MOST holy places. The presence of the US military (INFIDELS) on Saudi soil is an abomination to the those of that faith. It's easy for us in the West to not understand/respect that.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq?


If damage was done to Mecca, The Prophet's Tomb, the Son's of the Prophet's Tomb, etc, that would have been like opening the gates of hell. Damage to Mecca is enough to have the whole muslim population up in arms.

Something which America would never be stupid enough to do. We all got to witness what happens when they think the Qu'Ran gets damaged.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq?


If damage was done to Mecca, The Prophet's Tomb, the Son's of the Prophet's Tomb, etc, that would have been like opening the gates of hell.


To them, we the westerners, are infadels. Our presence on Saudi soil is an abomination to them b/c Saudi Arabia is their HOLY LAND.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq?


If damage was done to Mecca, The Prophet's Tomb, the Son's of the Prophet's Tomb, etc, that would have been like opening the gates of hell. Damage to Mecca is enough to have the whole muslim population up in arms.

Something which America would never be stupid enough to do. We all got to witness what happens when they think the Qu'Ran gets damaged.



Well again here is where we separate I think, If a nuke was to go off in a major (note) "western" city, then that becomes a target as does Rome in the same manner.

If the Muslims of the world do not want to see the violence continue then they must 'put it down'.

It is like a Dog, a member of the family, at some point someone has to put the dog down if it is sick. You don't call the neighbor to do it. The man of the house does the deed. Sad but that is the way things are done.

They MUST weed this trash out, for their OWN survival, if they don't, things will be very very bad for all of Islam.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Ed, the problem is much bigger. We must identify and put a stop to those (behind the curtains) who are truly driving this.

It goes beyond the stupid jihadists and those who retaliate. It is those unknown and unseen men in $5,000 suits who sit at the pinnacle of banking, politics and industry. It is they who secretly finance BOTH sides for power and profit.

I wish everyone could read the incredible book Rule By Secrecy, by Jimm Marrs. I read it in the summer before 9-11. When that's day's events unfolded. I was dumbstruck b/c I read all about BEFOREHAND. Not SPECIFICALLY mind you, but its message and the modus operendi screamed at me. It was prophetic. I had never heard about Operation Northwoods before I read that book. It blew my mind.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Would Saudi have been much different than Iraq?


If damage was done to Mecca, The Prophet's Tomb, the Son's of the Prophet's Tomb, etc, that would have been like opening the gates of hell. Damage to Mecca is enough to have the whole muslim population up in arms.

Something which America would never be stupid enough to do. We all got to witness what happens when they think the Qu'Ran gets damaged.



Well again here is where we separate I think, If a nuke was to go off in a major (note) "western" city, then that becomes a target as does Rome in the same manner.

If the Muslims of the world do not want to see the violence continue then they must 'put it down'.

It is like a Dog, a member of the family, at some point someone has to put the dog down if it is sick. You don't call the neighbor to do it. The man of the house does the deed. Sad but that is the way things are done.

They MUST weed this trash out, for their OWN survival, if they don't, things will be very very bad for all of Islam.


They have done, over and over again until Iraq was invaded. They then stopped. They even said that by invading Iraq it would make things worse. Which it has done. Iraq and the whole of the Middle East will keep on getting worse and worse the more we invade them, the more we force our rule. It has to be a slow change which was happening up till Iraq.

Muslim Council of India, Great Britain, America, Pakistan, etc, all have spoke out about September the 11th and all of them said invading Iraq would cause more problems. Did anyone listen to them? No.

Also which Nation does America protect the most in the Middle East? And which Nation houses the largest Wahhabism popultion? You've guessed right - Saudi Arabia. If the American Government was smart they would get the rest of the Islamic World on their side and have them clear up the mess in the Middle East - invading them won't do it.

Also just because we go to war with an Islamic Nation or Islamic Terrorists does not give us the right to destory any of their Holy Sites. That's the same as Britain nuking the Vatican because of the IRA.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

They have done, over and over again until Iraq was invaded. They then stopped. They even said that by invading Iraq it would make things worse. Which it has done. Iraq and the whole of the Middle East will keep on getting worse and worse the more we invade them, the more we force our rule. It has to be a slow change which was happening up till Iraq.


Also just because we go to war with an Islamic Nation or Islamic Terrorists does not give us the right to destory any of their Holy Sites. That's the same as Britain nuking the Vatican because of the IRA.



(1) I seem to see elections and freedoms spreading in the Middle East after the Iraqi vote - You don't?

(2) I know it is wrong, but what is their target? The infidel and the West. When its all out war the next time it will be for keeps I am afraid. Now would damaging Mecca be wrong? yes, but what these beasts did to the Buddha's in Afghanistan was not right either. They only understand power and if the threat of what they are doing is made to them, they might take notice. Now they know we fight by humane rules whist they do not....keep that in mind. When something big happens, the political correctness will be out the window.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
You guys/gals will have to excuse my ignorance about the House of Saud. The customs and ethnic land ideals are foreign to me. I have read about their politics, but not much else. I had no Idea that the land was holy to Islam. I guess in my ignorance I assumed the Holy land to be Jerusellem.(SP?)




top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join