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

Originally posted by Samhain
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]

Exactly Mr. edsinger does not understand that US alone can not win the war anywhere it needs allies and more countries to help.

Right now we account for 85 percent of the forces in that country and is not good.

US need help but the president is to arrogant to give in and admit that he was wrong as to the extent of the opposition in that country and beg for help.

Meanwhile he cares not that our troops are becoming target practices for the opposition.

"Exactly Mr. edsinger does not understand that US alone can not win the war anywhere it needs allies and more countries to help."

We could win,but are we willing to pay what it would take to do it?
Draft,billions of more dollars,many many troops dead,many more civilians.
And if we had a huge standing army,do you not think we would just roll over syria and iran while we are at it?
I do.

Whatever - Enjoy your freedom while you have it. Americans are dying so that you can you ungrateful people.

Originally posted by edsinger
Whatever - Enjoy your freedom while you have it. Americans are dying so that you can you ungrateful people.

Americans are dying in an unjust war based on false claims, edsinger. I't seems you feel very grateful of your current Aministration for making that happen.

Originally posted by edsinger
Whatever - Enjoy your freedom while you have it. Americans are dying so that you can you ungrateful people.

Thanks for the typical republican response. People object to the war and then you try to toss this garbage in their faces to make them feel guilty for questioning what the government does. It doesn't work that way. I respect the troops, my close friend is in Afghanistan as I type this, but I don't agree with why they're there.

Are we the problem or are the citizens that will blindly follow the President into WW3?

[edit on 11/21/04 by crazeinc]

Originally posted by edsinger
Whatever - Enjoy your freedom while you have it. Americans are dying so that you can you ungrateful people.

Yeah. With expansion of the Patriot Act and mandatory 'mental health' screening of the nation's young, along with the unshelved TIA program, our freedom is evaporating pretty quick. And guess what, it has nothing to do with Iraqis or terrorists. So keep the faith in the War on Terror, because the facts sure don't support it.

Originally posted by edsinger
Whatever - Enjoy your freedom while you have it. Americans are dying so that you can you ungrateful people.

Im not ungrateful to our troops,im resentful at my government for getting us into a totaly hopeless, dangerous and costly mess.
you are confusing patriotism for party loyalty.
tow the line.

After Afghanistan, Iraq was the next obvious choice.

The Training camps.

Financial cooperation with other terrorist Orgs.

Bounties paid on JEWS ( and it's looking like the money came from that WILDLY successful OIL FOR FOOD, program)

Did I mention complete disregard for the terms of the CEASE FIRE after Kuwait?

How about MOWING down fleeing refugees, right after the the above mentioned Cease fire? Strafing runs with Choppers.

How about the assasination plot on Bush the former?

Or death, mutilation and torture as "SPORT"?

Anyone notice how I said "CEASE FIRE", and not, the end of the Gulf War?

C'mon folks Saddam turned his country into a Secular IslamoMafia.


After Iraq, we'll have to see where the "cockroaches" flee..
Where the nests seem to be emerging..
We just now Turned on the Kitchen Light, In IRAQ

We are in Iraq to secure a military presence in the middle east.the neo-cons were mad at bush sr for not going ahead and taking and securing iraq in the first golf war,he did the right thing and got us out after the job was done,with a willing coaltion many times larger than what we have.
bush jr used feigned anger over 911 to rush us into war with iraq,and knowingly LIED to us about intell to get support from the people.what blows me away is even after this is known,people still support him.

Originally posted by Samhain
We are in Iraq to secure a military presence in the middle east.the neo-cons were mad at bush sr for not going ahead and taking and securing iraq in the first golf war,he did the right thing and got us out after the job was done,with a willing coaltion many times larger than what we have.
bush jr used feigned anger over 911 to rush us into war with iraq,and knowingly LIED to us about intell to get support from the people.what blows me away is even after this is known,people still support him.

That is exactly my cry

ok, fair enough you 2...

Where would YOU have gone next after Afghanistan?

Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

It's good to be a loyalist to your party, but it's not good, definitly not when peoples lives are at stake for the reputation of these parties.

Why can't they simply accept thier wrong for once?

No one is perfect and just because one is President doen't make him errorless.

Our voice , supposly our voice( The PRESIDENT) is a selfish careless person with no love for America his love is for power.

But the funny thing is that his power is limited and due to the ones that have seen his evil , voice thier opion at thy election.

Bush knows half of the U.S.A are his puppets and now wants the other half
to fear evil? (AS a way to get them to belive his lies)

What evil for the enemy is within our nation already!!!!

Without a ONE nation his war is wrong, we didnt instigate them terrorist to hit us, your beloved half did..

Long live the red the blood shed for our nation, for the Blues words are like stripes running down a skunks rear....






[edit on 21-11-2004 by 2ndSEED]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

Certainly you're not suggesting you believe a 'War on Terrorsim' can ever actually be won or finished? What exactly do you think terrorism is?

Also, you do realize the consequence of using such vague reasoning to describe the enemy, don't you?

Originally posted by spacedoubt
ok, fair enough you 2...

Where would YOU have gone next after Afghanistan?

Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

Well,first afghanistan would have needed to be over to start leaving.
we still have a HUGE obligation there,and we are totally flubbing it.
we should have pursued terrorist with more special forces and investigation and infitration of thier cells.we should have pursued it with the help of all of our allies,not just the ones who kiss our @ss.
we should have been working to make afganistan a "beacon of freedom".the afghans truly did want our help,they truly welcomed us,and for the most part are cooperative.
with the troops and money we have wasted in iraq,afghanistan could have well been on it's way.
and osama should be dead by now.( i still dont understand how him being alive is good for bush)
afghanistan should have showed the world our HONORABLE intentions,and with that,it would have lent us a TON credit as liberators,not occupiers.as the bringers of freedom,instead of the bringers of death.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Samhain]

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

Certainly you're not suggesting you believe a 'War on Terrorsim' can ever actually be won or finished? What exactly do you think terrorism is?

Also, you do realize the consequence of using such vague reasoning to describe the enemy, don't you?

Thats true, it may never be over. Especially if no one attempts to end it.

Terrorists, Extreme islamic fundamentlists, and those who support them.

and, finally, yes.


Now, based on those definitions...suspend your disbelief for a moment.

Where would you go next, after Iraq?..Hypothetically speaking.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Thats true, it may never be over. Especially if no one attempts to end it.

I would say the best way to go about this is to go after those who were actually behind the 9/11 attacks to begin with. Which thus far seems to be the al Qaeda group. Much like other crime in our society is treated; you go after the actual perpetrator(s).

Terrorists, Extreme islamic fundamentlists, and those who support them.

Ok, 'Extreme islamic fundamentlists' is somewhat more focused than 'terrorist'. Because a 'terrorist' doesn't necessarily have to be an islamic fundamentalist. So in other words, this should actually be called a 'War on Extreme islamic fundamentlists' then, wouldn't you agree? Though IMO this still is way too vague a description. Again, what should be focused on is to go after the actual perpetrator(s) of the attacks that initiated this war to begin with.

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

Certainly you're not suggesting you believe a 'War on Terrorsim' can ever actually be won or finished? What exactly do you think terrorism is?

Also, you do realize the consequence of using such vague reasoning to describe the enemy, don't you?

Thats true, it may never be over. Especially if no one attempts to end it.

Terrorists, Extreme islamic fundamentlists, and those who support them.

and, finally, yes.


Now, based on those definitions...suspend your disbelief for a moment.

Where would you go next, after Iraq?..Hypothetically speaking.

To the US Government.

Hmmm, wasn't Allawi connected with performing car bombings and assasinations against the Iraqi government? Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh wait, only Muslims support terrorism. Wait again, Allawi is Muslim, no? So we have our own pocket terrorists, then we have those evil bad terrorists, then we have the terrorists we used to support with Stinger missiles, and the good terrorists who helped us stage a coup in Chile, then we have the good Contras, the evil Khomeni terrorists, and the good terrorists we paid to knock off the first elected official of Iran, and the good SAVAK terrorists who'd keep down the bad Iranian terrorists by shoving broken bottles up their asses...

You see where I'm going, terrorism is a tool that is perpetually in use by this country and others. So, it's not going to end anytime soon.

Durden,

I agree with you on the name.

Reality is, it's gotta be short, and catchy. Too bad, but true.
I'm not sure if that's the media's fault, or the nature of man.
But, yep, the idea has to be marketed, in such a way.

Iraq will not be won anytime soon. If the US can't pacify Baghdad and surroundings, democratic elections will not be held. If they still hold bogus elections, like Rumsfeld pointed out friday, the country will be in a state of civil war. Mission Accomplished.

And what is the meaning of winning in this case? Don't forget that Iran is also an islamic 'democracy'.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Catchy names are important. That's why Coke is called Coke instead of "Carbonated Water and High Fructose Corn Syrup With Some other Flavor Additives."

It's also why the War on Drugs isn't called "A perpetual war to rob you of your liberties and continually invest in governmental investigation of your bodily fluids in an ever-escalating struggle to control market forces from which we profit in multiple ways."

And the War on Terror isn't called "A perpetual war to establish geopolitical and economic control over Central Asia and Asia Minor."

Catchy is important when rolling out, uh, what'd they call Operation Iraqi Freedom? Oh yeah, a new product.