Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[tim_duncan2000]

Here is some bad news for the hate Bush crowd:

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Shi'ite fighters left the holiest shrine in the Iraqi city of Najaf Friday and began turning in their weapons, after tens of thousands of pilgrims celebrated a peace agreement that ended a bloody rebellion.

Religious authorities locked the doors of the Imam Ali mosque after the Mehdi Army militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr left. The fighters had defied U.S. military firepower and the interim Iraqi government for three weeks.

Iraq (news - web sites)'s most revered cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, made a dramatic return to Najaf Thursday and persuaded Sadr to accept a peace deal to halt the fighting, after a day of violence in which 110 Iraqis were killed and 501 wounded.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040827/ts_nm/iraq_dc_489

 

[WhataMESS!]

So it was the Shi'ite Iraqis who carried out 9/11?

Folks, Iraq is not where the real war is!

Would Halliburton have made the same profit in any other country in the middle east?

So, what is the objective of our presence in Iraq, rather than the rest of the middle east?

Tough questions.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

You still haven't been banned?

 

[WhataMESS!]

It's okay to question your beliefs.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

You really think that you're making good points?

 

[wade]

Iraq was just a misdirection. Makes Bush look "tough on terror", but really it's not about the war on terror at all.

If we wanted to deal with a real threat, we'd have dealt with North Korea - Bush blew that one immeadiately upon taking office. What stupidity - this is why Bush should not be re-elected!

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

Iraq was just a misdirection. Makes Bush look "tough on terror", but really it's not about the war on terror at all.

If we wanted to deal with a real threat, we'd have dealt with North Korea - Bush blew that one immeadiately upon taking office. What stupidity - this is why Bush should not be re-elected!

Wade.

Bush should not be re-elected becuase he did not invade N Korea ??? Does Kerry think we should do that?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Iraq was just a misdirection. Makes Bush look "tough on terror", but really it's not about the war on terror at all.

If we wanted to deal with a real threat, we'd have dealt with North Korea - Bush blew that one immeadiately upon taking office. What stupidity - this is why Bush should not be re-elected!

Wade.

where did you get your thinking patterns from? an ADHD 5 year old? Think about this......what would South Korea look like right now if the US had invaded North Korea?

try this.......

 

[freeandfun1]

Iraq was just a misdirection. Makes Bush look "tough on terror", but really it's not about the war on terror at all.

If we wanted to deal with a real threat, we'd have dealt with North Korea - Bush blew that one immeadiately upon taking office. What stupidity - this is why Bush should not be re-elected!

Wade.

Wade, you look at these international matters with blinders on. Each country can be handled in different ways.

Our containing Saddam was a distraction and a burden on our military and economic resources. He had to be neutralized before we could move on to issues such as Iran and NK. If we had invaded NK first, Saddam would have used our distraction there to do whatever he wanted. We would NOT have been able to contain Saddam while prosecuting a war on NK.

I have stated this before and I will state it again.

From what I see, the process is this:

1. Neutralize Iraq
2. Try to ferment public revolts in Iran while simultaneously building a base for possible war with them, Syria and/or Jordan in Iraq.
3. While executing 1 and 2 above, work on diplomatic solutions to NK. NK is not Muslim. They are doing what they are doing because they want recognition and MONEY. They can be handled in a different manner. War with NK is a LAST resort

You have to think at multiple levels. You have to look at issues in broader terms. You are focusing on one or two points and trying to make the case that YOU are right. You truly need to open your eyes, read a bit, and try to understand how things all come together and how each situation has to be handled.

Iraq was just a BATTLE in the overall war on terror. It is NOT THE War on Terror.

 

[WhataMESS!]

Test

 

[wade]

where did you get your thinking patterns from? an ADHD 5 year old? Think about this......what would South Korea look like right now if the US had invaded North Korea?

Ummm... my point is that we had a diplomatic solution with NK on the table when Bush took office and he threw it away.

The last thing that Bush wanted was a peaceful presidency.

-----

Free... I bet I read at least as much as you on this subject.

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

Ummm... my point is that we had a diplomatic solution with NK on the table when Bush took office and he threw it away.

The last thing that Bush wanted was a peaceful presidency.

Wade.

and why is that Wade---do we have to hear the same old shit again ?

 

[freeandfun1]

Ummm... my point is that we had a diplomatic solution with NK on the table when Bush took office and he threw it away.

A diplomatic solution is not a solution if one of the parties is not abiding by the solution.

Dimwit!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Ummm... my point is that we had a diplomatic solution with NK on the table when Bush took office and he threw it away.

The last thing that Bush wanted was a peaceful presidency.

Wade.

That 'diplomatic' solution was doing nothing more than letting NK continue a weapons program. Now, they have a possible 6 to 8 weapons instead of 1 or 2. How many of those do you think they will sell for some much needed cash? Who will they sell them to?

All that 'diplomatic' solution would have accomplished was strenghten North Koreas military aggressiveness and put them in a position where they could actually demand things instead of coming to the table for talks.

 

[Daniel]

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld was part of a company that in 2000 sold nuclear arms to North Korea. The very people that are involved with creating the problem are involved with the solution.

Problem, Reaction, Solution

 

[dilloduck]

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld was part of a company that in 2000 sold nuclear arms to North Korea. The very people that are involved with creating the problem are involved with the solution.

Problem, Reaction, Solution

where in the hell are you getting this info?

 

[freeandfun1]

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld was part of a company that in 2000 sold nuclear arms to North Korea. The very people that are involved with creating the problem are involved with the solution.

Problem, Reaction, Solution

Link. Idiot.

 

[Daniel]

Unbelieveable? believe it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952196,00.html

 

[tim_duncan2000]

A light water reactor is not a nuclear weapon. And even if it was, that article points out that it was a Clinton policy to try to give them one.

I may not agree with DK on some things, but I totally agree with his last few posts.

 

[freeandfun1]

Unbelieveable? believe it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952196,00.html

Dude, that deal was put together by Clinton and Carter. So what if, at the time, while not working in an administration, Rumsfeld worked for the Swiss company that won the contract. Are you suggesting Rumsfeld had no right to work?

Who was Rumsfeld, at the time, to speak out against the deal? He didn't then work in ANY administration, so his speaking out against a plan implemented by a Democratic Administration would not have done anything. He would have just been labeled a partisan.

Get a grip dude. That story is SERIOUSLY grasping at straws.