So how do we continue the "War on Terror" when Iraq is won?

Well we have a few paths in front of us, Iraq will be somewhat stable within 12-18 months. This conversation should only be about the paths after Iraq if no major terror attack comes to the United States or to its interests.

Barring another major terror attack, Iraq somewhat stable, What would the next step be? There are a few things that also need to be considered. I for one, do not feel North Korea to be that big of a threat when compared to Islamic Terror. So North Korea should only be considered if ones some how can convince me of the threat and its impending timeline.


(1) The "Wait and See Approach"

Well leave Iran alone, let it have its Nukes, just make it damn plain and simple that if attacked, Persia becomes glass........ If Islamic Terror can be "controlled" or "contained", is this the path we should follow?


(2) "Hammertime and Crush "

When Iraq is done, do things that so scare Iran so bad that they give in "Libya" style. Maybe hit Syria and start the domino effect of arab peoples having the chance to join the world communities as elected secular governments.


(3) "Isolation and Withdraw"

Withdraw from all over the world, close the borders, stay out of the wars that will most likely result from this withdrawn posture of the United States.


(4) "Grant the Islamic world the Crusade they so desire"

If they didnt want one, would they not be attempting to limit these fundementalists? Do they not know that sooner or later the West will ahve had enough?



I know I have forgot some possible paths, so have at it....I lean toward #2 at this point in time, but if another mass attack occurs, then #4.

Your beloved leader declared the Iraq War won 18 months ago.

The misnamed "War On Terror" will continue as always, predicated on lies, false intelligence, corruption and crony capitalism, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives to the benefit of a criminal gang.

Mission Accomplished

Saddam out of Power!


But remember what he said, "There is hard work yet ahead of us".


Liberals and their slants.......The Mission: Remove Saddam

I admitt that it is not totally won as of yet, but Saddam was gone.

.
When we get done in Iraq perhaps we can Get BACK to the war on terror!

Hopefully before Osama gets a nuke.

[If we don't cut and run in Iraq, with the fumble-fingers running it now we will NEVER GET OUT OF IRAQ.]
.

I beg to differ with all who think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.....believe what you wish, but they are absolutely connected.

Of all the nations of the world, I see America going to war with North Korea or China highly unlikely. Both are such volatile situations and the U.S. really has no reason to ever fight North Korea or China. Just no reason. I hope it never happens. 2/10 chance of happening

America's obsession with the Middle East has got me thinking that we're gonna be there for a long time. Therefore, in the coming months, I see Iran as a major potential target for America, and perhaps Syria as well. Do not be surprised if we ever go to war with both nations. About 6/10 chance at this happening.

edsinger, please get it through your head that whatever Rove and his cronies tell you Iraq and Al Queda were not in cahoots so that makes Iraq a distraction in the war on terror. We really should have been going after the Saudi's not the Iraqis. The house of Saud has been proven to provide material support to Bin Laden. Approx half the religous police in the country ARE Al Queda, don't listen to anyone who says otherwise, because you know what? Anyone who has lived over in the middle east will know where the problem lies, and like it or not Iraq and Saddam provided a measure of stability in the region, because he was not a fundementalist. Iran hated Iraq, i'm sure the Saudis didn't like the Iraqis that much either. We are fighting Radical Islam, not the Entire Middle East! And oh yeah before you say somthing like how would you know you never lived there. But my answer is that I have. Lived in Jhedda for 2 and half years buddy. It was in the 80s but the people I talk to who still go over there from time to time to do business say things have only gotten worse since 911. The numbers of Religous police have increased dramatically. Foriegners are even less welcome then they were back in the 80s.

Well I disagree, they are tied together and there is more to the story of the Saudi royals than you know...


Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected and they both had to go......

1. Hussen is not out of power. 2. there is no insurgents in iraq the people fighting the U.S. are Hussens Army that have put on civilian clothes and are waging an asymetrical war which they are winning U.S. and U.K., Austrailia are the insurgents Hussen;s army are the counter insurgents 3. there is not 1100+ Soilders killed there are at least 2200 U.S. INSURGENTS K.I.A. in Iraq this war IS about oil in order to understand you must read in chronilogical order part 1. joevialls.altermedia.info...

Well, the original plan called for US forces to dwindle to 30,000 six months after the invasion. To 'win' Iraq right now, best estimates are it's going to be about a 10 - 15 year match with about 10% of Iraq's population killed in the process.

Basically, the 12 - 18 month fantasy is just that, as much as a fantasy as Perle saying that 'by this time next year there'll probably be a street named after President Bush in Baghdad,' in March, 2003.

We're 20 months into the war, which ignored all military strategy and followed a civilian-devised plan.

The US can withdraw now, withdraw later, or stay for the long term, which like I said, will be about 10 - 15 years. Civilization will not end if we withdraw, which was the argument against withdrawing from Vietnam.

At the current rate, Iran will have nukes and the means of delivering them. The best option the US has at that point is to start actual diplomacy and cooperation with them. They will have too much influence in the Gulf to ignore, and be too dangerous to mess with.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I disagree, they are tied together and there is more to the story of the Saudi royals than you know...


Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected and they both had to go......

You disagree. But I bet you havn't ever stepped foot on Middle Eastern soil in you life. And what is the story on the royals? Please do enlighten me Oh yeah you yanks dont want to deal with saudi cuz you too addicted to their oil... Hmmm methinks this is gonna turn out alot like Vietnam and Cambodia. Only time will tell..... And I've been right on so far....

Its always out there......its them its them. Ever ask yourself who benefits from this thing called "War on terrorism" You think the terrorist really benefit?

Remember...KISS was a real cool rock band in the late 70s it also means Keep it Simple Stupid

Once IRAQ has been in full military control, then what?

Thats just one country that harbors terrorist and we never proved they did it, weren't those terroist JORDANIANS anyways?

Are we gonna attack them too, I sugguest we do since they are in our scope..

U see what I'm saying that this war makes no sense, theres freaking terroist in Kenya and the Philipines too so IRAQ was just a front to out money in the goverments pockets!!!!!

Did you guys read the link I posted?

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Did you guys read the link I posted?

I guess I didn't but I thank you I've took a breeze browse and it is definite intresting, wow Isreal tarketed bu them missles and a imposter hussein.

I've herd and recall the news mentioning that he did have like 4 or 5 of them imposters...

Thaks again

Edsinger What iraq we are winning the real Iraq, or the Iraq of your dreams and hopes, you know the one that Mr. Bush is selling to trusting people like you.

Siberian Tigers link is very revealing and closes up alot of holes in this Swiss Cheese called War on Terrorism.


Its Mossad Stupid

I understand what christ was talking about with the Serpent label thing now..lol



Oooooops ADL rocks.... ((( INCOMING )))) ,,,im antisemite,,,,,someone give me a shield for christs sake,,,the ADL rocks are raining down.

Originally posted by edsinger
I beg to differ with all who think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.....believe what you wish, but they are absolutely connected.

Your absolutely right,they are connected,we connected them.
What makes you think Iraq will be anywhere near stable in 12-18 months.
This seems a bit to optimistic to me.

Originally posted by Samhain

Originally posted by edsinger
I beg to differ with all who think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.....believe what you wish, but they are absolutely connected.

Your absolutely right,they are connected,we connected them.
What makes you think Iraq will be anywhere near stable in 12-18 months.
This seems a bit to optimistic to me.

I will stand by that, in 12-18 months we will have less than 50,000 troops there and possibly less than 25,000

Why?

The New Iraq national guard did well recently and they will be taking the defense of THEIR nation in hand.

When we leave Iraq,a civil war will ensue.and iraq will split up into warring factions at best.the most we can hope for at this point is a north and south iraq,much like vietnam or korea.the only way i see of changing this is to put at least another 500,000 troops on the ground,and meet the rebels at every corner.and even that may not do it.
Which seems to me that the only way to win in iraq, is going to mean a draft.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Samhain]