It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Liberals and Ending the War

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:34 PM
Taking into account Osama bin Laden's latest statement of purpose in regards to Iraq and the war:

"Osama bin Laden declares "Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

"Muslims in neighboring countries" to "do their best in supporting their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq."

"My speech to you is about the siege of Gaza and the way to liberate it," he said.

"The Gaza siege is a direct result of Annapolis," he adds, apparently referring to the site of November's summit in Annapolis, Maryland, where Israeli and Palestinian leadership agreed to work toward a two-state plan.

PHX News

Does anyone still believe it is the intention of the Islamic Fascists to just stop at running us from Iraq?

Regardless of anyones thoughts on the likelihood of OBL still drawing breath, this is direct evidence of his "Organization's" purpose and direction; the complete subjugation of the Middle East under extreme Islamic Fascist Rule.

How can any thinking intellect believe that it would stop there?


(And the libs have the audacity to call us sheeple)


posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 03:51 PM
These people aren't rational.

Al Qaeda carried out at least four attacks against the US during Clinton's administration, but somehow those are facts that are lost on the poor liberal.

No wonder the Democrats pander to the young and the ignorant and troll skid row on election day to get every last damaged brain cell into the voting booths.

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

In a way, these Islamic terrorists are school yard bullies. They understand only one thing, force and the applications of it to gain what they want. This analogy is somewhat weak, but there is more than a bit of truth to it.

How do you stop them? How'd you deal with a school yard bully when you were a kid? Most of us, we stepped up and popped the little sob in the mouth, and said stop. Odds are he did. Or maybe, we got a big brother or big sister to do it, with the same result. No other way really works.

Giving them what they want? Yeah, think about how well that worked in Europe during the Viking incursions, or later during Hitler's rise to power. Paying danegeld doesn't get rid of the Dane, he keeps coming back for more. You stop him by drawing your sword, or equivalent, and making it difficult as you can, he'll usually go on to an easier target, or see the light and stop entirely.

The peace at any price crowd hasn't yet realized that that means bowing your head to slavery. Peace? It's a wonderful concept, but at any price? No. My freedoms aren't for sale at any price. In an Islamic state, especially the one a OBL-type envisions, I'd be amongst the first to be put against the wall. I'm not a child of Abraham, I won't even get second class citizenship. My peace under those circumstances would be the peace of the grave.

It would be wonderful if we could sit down and discuss these issues...but to have a disscussion requires two. OBL, and his like, want only one thing, the death and/or distruction of the West. His hate is irrational and knows only death and destruction. You deal with a mad dog, how? By shooting it. You deal with a bully, how? By punching him in the mouth.

The sooner we, liberal and concervative alike, realize the the battle between radical Islam and the West is one to the death, the sooner maybe it'll be won. Maybe. ATtempt to placate, to "understand their greivences", the sooner the Dane will be at the gates demanding more danegeld.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:09 AM
By invading Iraq Bush made the same strategic mistake that Hitler did that is spreading your forces to thin so that victory isnt possible anywhere . Bin Ladin knows this and can easily exploit this by having a relatively small presence in Iraq. The other insurgent groups can do most of the work while al Qaeda remains the public face of the war. This of course ties down large numbers of US troops .

You cant base a case for or against a war based on enemy propaganda. People use the same enemy propaganda to explain the motives behind 9-11 or to argue for the continuation of the Iraq. I am wary of any opinions that come about in the manner described rather then based on merit.

Oh it would also be useful to note that the whole Conservative vas Liberal mindset is a bit misleading or inaccurate when you consider that some of brains trust behind the invasion of Iraq have admitted that it more or less wasn't such a bright idea.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:27 AM
I don't consider it so much a statement of enemy propaganda, as a "Statement of Enemy Combatant Purpose". Therefor not only perfectly legitimate, but to deny its significance would be as sad as everyones recent loss of memory regarding the holocaust that was 9/11.

As for those in the Think Tank having second thoughts, I am sure that just as many, or more, still support the war and our true reasons for being there. They are human after all and subject to the same "Distance and Time makes us safe" phenomena that all humans are. Forgetting their avid support only a few years gone, instead assuming that time and distance are making us safe. Exactly the same thought process that allowed the tragic event to happen in the first place.
To imagine that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not effective at preventing another attack here, is the ultimate fallacy in logical thinking, or the complete misunderstanding of the Islamic Mindset and their historical appreciation of strength and contempt for weakness.

In regards to the Conservative V. Liberal mindset, I see no reason not to point out the simple fact that more Conservatives support the WOT than Liberals. Vastly more, as evidenced most clearly by the current Liberal Party of choice, the Democrat Party and their "Overall" general support for surrender in Iraq.

(Note I did not say 100% support, as there are Democrats that do show some memory and common sense)


posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:16 AM
Umm the US is fighting the enemy in Iraq because of its own doing and I never said that the invasion of Afghanistan hasn't prevented other terrorist attacks.

If I really thought otherwise why would I support NZ involvement in Afghanistan ?

Aside from the fact it would be naive to take everything the enemy says at face value when you do this you fail to grasp the strategic consequences which I have already mentioned. At the moment the enemy can gain from both a withdrawl from Iraq and the continuation of the war. If an insurgency is tiring(SP?) down a large number of enemy troops that could be used elsewhere it is achieving its strategic objective .

The way out of this hole is to increase the size of the US military .

There are other issues such as if Federalisms will work in Iraq and other inconsistency's that are not dealt with.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by xpert11]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

The liberal agenda should be clear after 9/11, where they went on a frenzy claiming the U.S. government was responsible for what some psychotic religious fundamentalists did. In their mind, the U.S. is the only terrorist and everyone else is a victim. it really any surprise they are void of any reasonable thought?

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:22 AM
Laiguana not only have you made the mistake have painting a group of people with broad brush stroke you seem to have posted a false hood or in the very least a misleading idea. The most creditable video that asks questions of 9-11 that I have seen comes from a self proclaimed conservative Republican .

Laiguana please don't the next bit as me picking on you personally.

Returning to the topic during my time on ATS the Iraq war has never been all that productive . Both sides of have been guilty of ill rational thought process at differnt times . The kind of thinking in the above post goes some way towards explaining why there is a lack of sensible debate and conclusions at all levels concerning the Iraq war.

I don't support a withdrawl from Iraq at this stage because the coalition would just have to take military action in the future against the enemy in the same area. However I don't consider it unreasonable to question if federalism can work in Iraq. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to question why the same politicians who didn't think that US troops should die in Somalia are now the biggest supporters of the war.

Ever notice how the biggest supporters of state rights seem to think that federalism will work in Iraq ?

To me it indicates that the debate surrounding the war in Iraq is far more partisan then practical . This is what lead to undesirable outcome more then anything else.

The best comparison I can draw is this .
If A said the sky was blue I am sure B would disagree and claim all sorts of things. If A and B put had a logical debate they might discover that the sky is sometimes grey.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by xpert11]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:46 AM

Sorry about the Afghan reference, I was just also making a broad stroke as it were...

About the size of the U.S. Military and us being "drawn thin".

You are aware of this:

As of April 2007, about 1,426,700 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,500 people in the seven reserve components.


There have always been about the same number of troops in Iraq as there are in South Korea, which is maintained and has been constantly sense the 1950's.
(not sure of the surge numbers, maybe you have that number?)

Anyway, the point is that active and reserve numbers around 2.9million and taking into account about half are combat, we have 1.45 million combat soldiers to move in and out of Iraq...

Remember that MANY are asking, volunteering for return trips after their tours are done.

Our two Reserve Units here have been to Afghanistan once in 4 years and Iraq once in the past 3. They are getting plenty of down time, except for those that have requested transfers to active units going back over.

I just don't see how once one looks past the propaganda, we are stretched thin at all....


posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:51 AM

How can any thinking intellect believe that it would stop there?


(And the libs have the audacity to call us sheeple)


First, thanks Semper for linking me into this forum!

Now to my response-

This whole Libs vs. Cons thingy has to just go- because it does not really exist except in theory. These two parties gun at each other- which is contrary to their own belief systems of operation- which proves they are both full of it- and have become nothing more than groups yelling at each other while both parties serve the same agenda- nothing changes when either is in control. Its all finger pointing and blame shifting while the actions occur regardless which party is in power!

This is a fact that most people never come to realize. The "sheeple" just pick a pen, put on their boxing gloves and come out fighting.

This does not suggest- it PROVES- there is a third party which is creating this. Pitting both parties against each other while its own agenda gets served. This party is generally referred to as the ELITE.

The ELITE is the greatest political conspiracy ever- and is rarely charged and/or discussed with any real seriousness when discussing politics.

I am not rickrolling or straying off topic. I feel it is important to reveal my personal political beliefs before commenting seriously on the subject of the thread you started. I hope you will all see this as respectful- this was my only intent.

No thinking intellect could actually believe the shenanigans would stop there. Invading the area to "crush the fascist crazy Islamics" is the exact same argument the crazy Catholic Spanish came up with to overthrow and assassinate the demoniacally possessed Protestant Queen who was handing England over to Satan!

(giggle...yes, I am laughing too!)

It did happen that way and Osama/Bush are no different- not really. Even with that terrible bloody history as a lesson- here we are centuries later doing the same thing- expecting different results.

Then the argument is: Do you want the Crazy Muslims to win?

The answer for me as I consider myself a civilized person is this. No. And if weren't over there stealing oil, creating military bases on their land to terrorize them- they probably wouldn't consider us the infidels they have labeled us as being!

Americans are brilliant, driven and highly creative when properly motivated and compensated. We could easily create a fleet of automobiles and alternative energy sources which have nothing to do with fossil fuels- we could assist like-minded countries and nations with this transition. Many people would be working and thriving. and that would be that- at least the beginning of that.

My ultimate point being- The middle east is suffering a crisis that we helped to create and we are doing nothing to ease it or change it. They are insane with anger and bloodlust which clearly poses a threat. This threat increases as we increase military presence. And as you well noted- we are increasing presence.

Hence, we are the primary cause of terrorism in the Middle East. We placed the Shah of Iran into power. We placed Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We did this to "protect and control" trade routes. We did this to destabilize the region under the guise of "protecting our allies and friends who desired freedom and democracy and wanted us to show them how to achieve it". We forced our control over their natural resources as payment- yet claimed to hold it in trust- for them until they could develop a control of their own and properly distribute their nest eggs into the world economy".

Hence they saw through the charade and are very pissed off and crazy- they always have been- but now they have a legitimate reason- and this is the nightmare we all face on every level.

The real problem is we will not take responsibility or claim any real accountability- even to take some of the sting out. This makes them suicidally insane with rage and anger and they are multiplying is numbers greater than ours.

They are doing only what they know to respond. They are not arrogant- they are desperate.

What I see happening is our country is falling apart and this is empowering their belief and others who are watching.

This is not about two parties- liberal and conservative. This is political cannibalism which leads to genocide- and who cares anyway- the world is over populated and needs to be thinned out. Given they have always been crazy terrorists- no one really cares unless of course you join one of the two parties. These are where the stones get thrown and nothing gets done!

Finally- Liberals cannot end this war. Conservatives cannot end this war. The Elite will not end war (it is likely it is too far out of control at this point even for them!).


PS: You are right Semper, people in this area are much smarter!

[edit on 22-3-2008 by dk3000]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:01 PM
Semperfortis I think the surge was about 30,000 troops but that isnt an exact figure. If you think about it the main limit to the success of the surge was the number of additional troops that were deployed. My thought process runs along the lines that US should withdraw troops from South Korea and redeploy them to Iraq after retraining . Besides given the importance of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if the US had the troops to spare they would be used to win both wars.

According to pre war planning coalition troops were spouse to be out of Iraq about five years ago . So that suggests that military and civilian planners didn't expect the war to drag on so long.
It looks like we will have to agree to disagree on the matter of the US military being "drawn thin" as you put it.

new topics

top topics


log in