What Would You Do Now?

[preemptingyou03]

As President, what would you do now in Iraq? Forget about what we're doing or what we will do... what would be your major steps to get Iraq in the right direction?

Step 1: Win the Propaganda War

There's a serious problem in the world with propaganda and it's different from the Cold War days, because today, we have the socialist European media, as well as the liberal American media to contend with. And then, of course, the al-Jazeera network and stations such as that. If I were Bush, I'd be on Arab TV more. I'd get Powell on TV. I'd write a personal letter to every Iraqi, make 25 million of them, and send them to Iraq for our troops to hand out to citizens. I'd be giving away toys to children in the street. I understand it is a war, but the worst thing for our enemy would be for us to win the Iraqis over for good.

I'd talk to the Iraqis more about the abuse problems. I'd destroy that prison and tell them torture was Saddam's way, not ours. I'd try and get moderate Arab leaders do help me out.

I'd speak to Iraqis about democracy. I'd actually turn around the entire abuse thing into a positive about democracy. I'd tell them in a democracy, people can debate, justice will be served. I'd tell them, their lives will be better, more peaceful. I'd tell them, they can vote for their leaders... and if the person they want to win losses, they'll have a chance in the future again. The Iraqi government will be for the Iraqis, by the Iraqis. And if there is a problem or someone bad within their government, they can vote them out.

Step 2: Talk to the UN

I wouldn't go to the UN and ask for help. I'd demand it. And I wouldn't demand it in a way where we'd have less control. I'd call them out. I'd call out the financial ties between France, Russia, germany and Iraq. I'd call the UN out telling them Syria, Sudan, and Libya shouldn't have a say in Human Rights.

I'd enforce my case about the WMD and tell the world how everyone thought they were there. I'd enforce my case on preemption and I'd make statements that would get people thinking. Sometimes I wonder, what if Bush could talk like Reagan?

Step 3: Get Iraqis to Help More

After June 30th, we'll see more of this. I'd actually reduce the level of troop size. Afghanistan has less troops and it is more secure than Iraq. We need to take the American face off of what we're doing. We need to put an Iraqi face on it. I'd reach out to respected Clerics, especially Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani who is the spiritual reference for Shias everywhere, and will probably be Iraq's next president, (as he should... he's not a bad guy). I'd get Sistani to speak out against al-Sadr and I'd get Iraqi forces to take down al-Sadr's militia. This will be a big test for Iraqis. And I think they'll pass.

Step 4: Confront the Arab World

I'd tell the Arab world that Iran and Syria are at war with Americans in Iraq. And I'd tell Syria and Iran to back off. I'd go to Islamic leaders, and I'd tell the Islamic world, that Islamic terrorists have killed more Muslims than the Israelis or Americans. I'd tell them they will live in the 12th century. I'd declare there was a state of civil war within Islam and that terrorists are trying to ruin Islam. I'd try and get Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to add troops to Iraq, only if they agree to slowly reform their ways and give their people more freedoms.

Step 5: Remind People We're at War

I'd come out and say the invasion of Iraq was one step in the war in Iraq. I'd remind people we're in a "terrorist war" where terrorists within a nation, remain at war with us, while we try to rebuild a country. I'd remind people the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan aren't over... and the War on Terror's just starting.

 

[Gop guy]

Nice, that's also what Bush is doing.

THE RIGHT IS RIGHT

 

[preemptingyou03]

I know, but you have to admit, he could be doing a better job. I support Bush will all my conviction, but I just feel he could be more blunt to the UN and CALL THEM OUT. He could be more blunt, on historical terms, than he is. We gotta try something new, especially in the wake of this abuse thing.

We can't let Iraq fail. It's too damn important.

 

[Gop guy]

I know that, I think all us conservatives know this.

Bush could expose the U.N. for what it is:
corrupt
ineffective
anti-Semitic

I don't know why he continues to give them chances either.

THE RIGHT IS RIGHT

 

[Patriot]

Quite frankly I believe Bush is being way to nice. I understand diplomacy but sometimes leaders need to carry a bigger stick and toot their own horn more often. Bush needs to put the smack down on the naysayers and go on the offensive because I know how much crap that man has on the left and he just sits on it and does nothing.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Exactly. If I were Bush, I'd give a huge speech at the UN and call it out for what it is, like you guys said. I'd restate my position on Iraq. I'd give a huge speech about Iraq's WMD and I wouldn't shy away from that issue at all, because he's right. I'd give a huge speech to restate my position on preemption. I'd give a huge speech on the seriousness of the War on Terror.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The propaganda war? Don't candy coat it, you mean brainwashing.


What would I do?

Considering that no matter when we decide to leave a bloodbath will follow, I think we should leave, say, yesterday?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I know that, I think all us conservatives know this.

Bush could expose the U.N. for what it is:
corrupt
ineffective
anti-Semitic

I don't know why he continues to give them chances either.

THE RIGHT IS RIGHT

While he's at it, you think you could get CowBushie to expose his own administration for what it is?

 

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Considering that no matter when we decide to leave a bloodbath will follow, I think we should leave, say, yesterday?

We're not leaving until we've won the terrorist war in Iraq.

You're mistaken if you think Iraq is either not part of the War on Terror or the War on Terror. It's a part. It's today's main front. That will change five years from now. It may be Sudan. It may be Iran. It may be Syria. It may be Egypt. It may be North Korea. It may be Pakistan.

We may suffer another 9/11 tomorrow. We may not. Regardless if we do or not, it shouldn't lessen our resolve to defeat the ideology of radicalism by means of democracy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're mistaken if you think Iraq is either not part of the War on Terror or the War on Terror. It's a part. It's today's main front.

Only because we turned it into that. Interesting how Osama Bin Laden is thousands of miles away from your main front on terror.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Interesting how people such as yourself don't understand a) this isn't just about OBL and b) capturing individuals is not dealt with militarily.

Not only do you not understand the ideology behind this war, but you don't understand the tactics of how to fight non-geographical enemies.

We didn't turn it into that. Saddam sponsored terrorism. Do you believe that? If you say no, will you stay on long enough for me to prove you wrong?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Only because we turned it into that. Interesting how Osama Bin Laden is thousands of miles away from your main front on terror.

Well not really if you think about it. I understand that does require the use of the head upon your shoulders so you may not be used to it.

1)We are not waging a war on Osama Bin Laden. We are waging a war on terror and those regimes that support terror. We could kill Osama Bin Laden tomorrow and the War on terror would continue.

2)Terrorism is a product of the opressive regimes in the middle east. We liberate them and we can largely fix many of the problems that propell people to believe terrorist gurus like Osama to begin with.

3)Renegade regimes like Saddams supply terrorists with funding and weapons. And any idiot who knows a thing about war knows that if you are going to be successful you need to destroy the enemies supply lines. If we stop these regimes from funding terrorism we can severely limit what these men can do.

There is no reasonable reason to conclude that Iraq is not part of the war on terror unless you are trying to attack America and pretend it is.

 

[preemptingyou03]

- We know Saddam funded Hezbollah, the world’s second largest terrorist group, with ties to al-Qaeda. Hezbollah is the group that killed the most Americans in the world, before September 11th. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam funded Hamas, al-Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad, the three terrorist groups that keep the chances of peace between Israel and Palestine low, the three groups that attack Israeli civilians just as Israel backs out of Palestinian settlements. How many Israeli school children died on their way to school from a suicide bomber funded by Hussein? Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam Hussein sheltered one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, Abu Nidal. Nidal killed over 900 people in 90 terrorist attacks in 25 different countries, and started his own terrorist network, the Abu Nidal Organization, with Hussein’s sponsorship. We know Nidal was killed by Iraqi officials when he failed to combine the ANO with al-Qaeda linked terrorists, in a plane hijacking camp in Western Iraq. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam sheltered another one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, Abu Abbas, or the “Osama bin Laden of the 1980s. ” Abbas was the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front terrorist group, a group that has killed hundreds, if not thousands of people over the years. Abbas was found and captured in Iraq when Baghdad fell. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam sheltered one of al-Qaeda’s senior leaders, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We know al-Zarqawi lost his leg in Afghanistan when American forces overthrew the Taliban, and he fled to Iraq and was given a prosthetic leg there. We know al-Zarqawi remains at large within Iraq and a recent letter of his was found, as he brags about killing “Iraqis that cooperate with Americans. ” He also complains in his letter that he believes the Americans are winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi got funds through Saddam by means of the anti-Kurdish terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, which is the Iraqi branch or stem of the al-Qaeda network. Ansar al-Islam fought side by side with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and then returned to Iraq through Iran. Supporting al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, in affect, is supporting al-Qaeda. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abdul Yassin, one of the men who plotted the first World Trade Center attacks. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam gave funds to the Sudanese government in the 1990s, which then went to Osama bin Laden who was given asylum in Sudan. Saddam did this to spark a coup in Algeria, as he wanted Algeria’s oil. Saddam’s imperialist tyranny, by means of the Sudanese as a third party, became direct funds to Osama bin Laden. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know intelligence of other countries have concluded al-Qaeda members met with Iraqi officials all throughout Europe and the Middle East time and time again. It is believed by the Germans that Mohammed Atta, the main hijacker on 9/11, met with one of Saddam’s top men in 1998 in Europe. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know the word “al-Qaeda” was whited out by Iraqi officials in documents found in Iraq.

- We know Saddam Hussein sponsored and funded the MEK terrorist group. We know Saddam Hussein sponsored and funded the PKK terrorist group. We know he funded Southeast Asian and North African terrorist groups. We know many branches of the Baathist regime itself, were considered as terrorist groups. The Baathists killed 750,000 people. Is this not terrorism?

- On top of all that, we know Saddam Hussein openly admits and brags of his support for these people and organizations. Is this not supporting terrorism?

- We know Saddam would have husbands dragged on their backs naked and then thrown into a septic tank until infection. We know Saddam would have women hung upside naked, during their menstrual cycles, for humiliation.

- We know he used WMD. We know he had them. We know every nation in the Security Council said he had them. We know every Democrat said he said them. We know every intelligence agency in Europe and Asia said he had them. We know Saddam didn't account for the weapons he admitted to having. We know he kicked inspectors out. We know he violated 17 resolutions 333 times. We know he had the desire and the capability to have them.

Should we have waited until he was a nuclear power? If we let technology of rogue states meet up with the radicalism of terrorist networks, then terrorism just reached a whole new ball game.

If we follow Kerry's game plan of bowing at the alter of the UN and appeasing France's financial problems as a result of our national security, in ten years, ten men, with ten nuclear suitcases, would be able to destroy ten US cities.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

- We know Saddam funded Hezbollah, the world’s second largest terrorist group, with ties to al-Qaeda. Hezbollah is the group that killed the most Americans in the world, before September 11th. Is this not supporting terrorism?

Did I ever claim Hussein didn't support terrorism in general? Nope. I'm just a bit more worred about Al Qaeda at this point in time, apparenly you'd rather spend most of the war effort on eradicating regimes that supported terrorists other than Al Qaeda instead of using that money to fight Al Qaeda, or gee, I dunno, build new schools here instead of Iraq?

- We know Saddam funded Hamas, al-Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad, the three terrorist groups that keep the chances of peace between Israel and Palestine low, the three groups that attack Israeli civilians just as Israel backs out of Palestinian settlements. How many Israeli school children died on their way to school from a suicide bomber funded by Hussein? Is this not supporting terrorism?

How many school children? I don't know the exact number, except that its about 30% of the number of Palestinian school children killed by israeli bombs. Oh, yeah, I forgot, its OK to massacre people as long as your dropping bombs from an airplane and not strapping them to your body. And as long as you kill at least one Palestinian militant, you're free to slaughter as many Palestinian school children as you want in the process.

- We know Saddam would have husbands dragged on their backs naked and then thrown into a septic tank until infection. We know Saddam would have women hung upside naked, during their menstrual cycles, for humiliation.

Those poor unfortunates. If they had been lucky, they would have died or been maimed at the hands of US "smart bombs," like THESE people. Those lucky people, they died at our hands instead of Saddam's! I bet they're happy!

We know he had them.

I can see it now. When Libya finishes disarming itself of WMD, we will have no choice but to invade, because they HAD WMD. And you don't have to actually have WMD NOW, even WMD in the past can come into the future and harm us.

 

[insein]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria you say? Jordan foiled a plot to kill 80,000? Syria got them from where? Iraq? No they don't have any WMDs.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Whats that? Debka said that awhile ago? Hmmm...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Whats that? Al Queda terror cell in iraq? Hmmm that can't be because Al Queda and Iraq don't like each other and have nothing to do with one another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
Whats that terror Camp reported in 2002 byt a Liberal newspaper? Imagine that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
Hmmm even CNN has shown that these attackers received training in Iraq and weapons from Syria.


Read up spidey on the connection of WMDs and al queda and Iraq.

 

[Patriot]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
The propaganda war? Don't candy coat it, you mean brainwashing.


What would I do?

Considering that no matter when we decide to leave a bloodbath will follow, I think we should leave, say, yesterday?

So you are saying you are doing your darndest at getting the soldiers out of Iraq and becoming apart of the human chain for passive resistance?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1)We are not waging a war on Osama Bin Laden. We are waging a war on terror

How does one wage a war on terror?

First of, terror is not a person or a thing, it is an idea, it is lighter than air, it is in fact, not composed of matter at all, so I fail to see how it can be destroyed. If it is possible to wage war on something like "terror," why not declare a "War on War" and just keep fighting against war until there is no more war left?

Second off, how do you intend to prosecute a war yourself without using terror? Other than killing the enemy (which is terrifying), inflicting terror on the enemy is the primary tool of warfare. How do you intend to fight terror without employing terror, and if you can't fight terror without employing terror, how can you possibly hope to eradicate terror by using terror?

And lastly, why aren't we waging a war against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? I thought they were responsible for 9/11, should we go to war against them?

2)Terrorism is a product of the opressive regimes in the middle east. We liberate them and we can largely fix many of the problems that propell people to believe terrorist gurus like Osama to begin with.

And the proper way to liberate people is to blow them up? That's the way to make them not feel so desperate and helpless, to drop bombs on them? WTF? Have you ever thought of perhaps, I dunno, feeding them instead of blowing them up?

3)Renegade regimes like Saddams supply terrorists with funding and weapons. And any idiot who knows a thing about war knows that if you are going to be successful you need to destroy the enemies supply lines. If we stop these regimes from funding terrorism we can severely limit what these men can do.

Really? Would you mind telling me how much material support Hussein lended to Al Qaeda for their attack on America? Was it more than certain people in Saudi Arabia?

There is no reasonable reason to conclude that Iraq is not part of the war on terror unless you are trying to attack America and pretend it is.

When you can't successfully argue against your oponent, call his patriotism into question. Brilliant tactic!

 

[gaffer]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba



When you can't successfully argue against your oponent, call his patriotism into question. Brilliant tactic! [/B]

You have been successfully argued against on main occasions here.

No one calls you unpatriotic. just stupid for buying into all that liberal bullshit. This country has another serious enemy within, they are called liberal democrats. Like bin kerry and bin kennedy and the other terror supporters. And I seriously question their patriotism.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Spiderman,

You are right. Terrorism is lighter than air. It can't be defeated with the fall of a government or the capture of a man. It's an ideology. And that ideology is radicalism. We must defeat Islamic radicalism to defeat the threat of terrorism. And the only way to defeat Islamic radicalism, is to flaunt the same values and ideals that won the Cold War. It'll last decades. It is a generational battle.

You say we should go to war with al-Qaeda. We did, idiot... Afghanistan. With a few thousand troops, in a few weeks, we did what the Soviet Union couldn't do in ten years.

Eight out of al-Qaeda's top ten are dead or behind bars. Fighting al-Qaeda is now an intelligence and law enforcement matter all over the globe. You can't invade a non-geographical enemy.

When will you understand the difference in tactics of fighting terrorist networks and terrorist regimes?

 

[Doc Holiday]

Spidey can't read too well, maybe we should break out the crayons and draw him a picture. Or maybe, we should just realize that people like Spidey are doomed to a life of stupidity, simply because they haven't found a way to turn their brain on and question liberal rhetoric.