He sure doesn't show his bugly mug does he? Is he afraid the US CIA will analyse the rocks behind him and plug him with a cruise missile? Watch for this to build into an East Vs. West with the Middle East as the impetus, scenario as in the days of the Cold War, it appears as though the alliances are forming in the same old philosphical circles once again after a 15-20 yr hiatus.
Unfortunately, this war is, and will be, the worst of its kind. You didn't have communist suicide bombers or capitialistic "jihad" fighters fighting that war. You basically had a politcal war where one side believed in the government controlling all aspects of the gross national output and the other side that believed in the free enterprise system. Freedom won. This war (and yes, it is a war) will make anything that happened between capitialism and communism look like child's play. Our enemy is devote to their religion. They are willing to die for it. They believe they will see allah and be rewarded with virgins when they kill infidels. Their Koran is VERY clear in dealing with non-believers: 1.) Covert the non-believer to islam 2.) Tax and subjugate non-believers for the benefit of islam 3.) Kill the infidel When our vets were fighting the Japanese during WWII, I listened to stories of how they shot Japanese soldiers that already appeared dead again to make sure they were in fact, dead. This was part of the battle that was commonly called, "mop up". Why? They were so afraid of the fact that the Japs would somehow rise up and yell “Tenno Haika! Banzai!” meaning “Long live the Emperor! Ten thousand ages!” which signaled a charge en masse at the enemy with no regard to their life. Today we fight a more sophisticated radical fighter that is also willing to kill their own to help them achieve their goal of islam for the world. The Koran is very clear on this subject matter. Islam was founded on violence and this violence will only end when the world is totally converted to the "religion of peace"
This conflict between the West and radical Islam is really interesting in one way. The conflict is largely being fought as might happen between a civilized man (United States) and a disturbed woman (Islam). Most real men, if they were to be attacked by a crazed woman or much weaker man, would take a lot of blows before responding for full effect. That is to say, a real man would generally deflect strikes and hold back for a while. However, if the attacking person were to step up the visciousness of the assault to where the man felt seriously threatened, most men would likely respond more violently. Say perhaps, the weak attacker pulls a gun and attempts to use it. By this comparison, if Muslim radicals actually threaten the survival of the United States or parts of Europe, the fight is likely to change dramatically. The Muslims have been relatively comfortable (and vocal) with a restrained western enemy. If the nonsense continues ad infinitum, look for something similar to Hiroshima or the Thirty Years War to happen. Chirac recently babled something that would lead the casual observer to believe that many in France may have reached the saturation point with Muslim nonsense. Unlike the French, the Americans and British would not likely flap their jaws before dropping the hammer. Real men don't say much before taking decisive action.
He sure did, something mentioning the possible usage of nuclear weapons if a conflict with a middle eastern nation arose.
Ha ha ha! That's a good one, like France would ever show some guts! They'd probably be so nervous as they were launching the weapons that they'd detonate them over Paris! Why do they even have an army over there? It'll never be used.
Hmm?? I wonder why the French would be bluffing about their use of powerful weapons against Muslims. It's not like Arabs caused riots which really ****ed off the French government.
Sorry about that Cloudy, but you must have mis-read the post. I never said I was learning anything, but simply ask IF it were possible that YOU were learning something. World of difference! How is that for a one-liner?:thumb:
I could see why strategic retreat phase was used by Dan, Mao did it with his great march when he left most of China to the Japanese during World War II. His plan was to let everyone kill each other off then they will come down from the mountains to take over the nation. Stalin did it when he let the Germans rage thru Russia and over extend themselves from their supply lines. Both communist leaders basically not caring for the population and cared less about the citizens being massacred for they only cared about gaining power or keeping what they had. Just like the American left today, not caring about the safety and well being of the american population but only about their own power and gaining more. By the way Danr, once again offering a truce that your enemy can not accept is not a sign of weakness in the middle east, it is a way to justify any future sins against your enemies and still have the "high moral ground". But that is the problem with a lot of the anti-war movement grassrooters, they think the enemy thinks just like them. It is all another world of reality one that is preverted and evil.
Danr, I think you've beaten an obscure point into irrelevance. But, you certainly aren’t the first person to do this in this forum anyway.
Moen it is not an obscure point. It is central to my point that these idiots in DC lack the ability to run this thing. And that they have an emotional self-defeating approach
I'm certainly not going to defend the village idiot in DC or his fellow incompetents. But it seem like you're making a point just for the sake of making a point. Sure retreat has been used historically to live to fight another day and even triumph but, we are long past the point where it is any kind of viable option. Sometimes the course of war narrows your options as you get further from its onset. This seems to be one of those instances which make your point moot even if it may have been relevant at one time. Sorry, that's just how I feel.
If that is your response to what I posted I am afraid that either you have low reading comprehension skills or you are so blinded by leftist vision that truth can not be seen.
Great quote by Bush in the state of the union address: "They will not leave us alone if we leave them alone. They will simply take the fight to our shores." Remember 9/11? That was BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Remember that major terrorist attack in the US that happened since we invaded Iraq? Oh that's right, it didn't happen. So far so good.
But yet, islamic-pig's-blood-soaked-terrorists have to be right just ONE time, while we have to do everything in our power to be right ALL of the time. Make no mistake, these animals are planning and preparing for an attack. It could be anywhere and maybe then, just maybe...the people here that support islamic people will wake up and say, "That's it!!...I had enough...I defended you, but NOW you are going down!"
Correction(s). First, Iraq DID NOT attack the USA on 9/11. People still believe this, unbelievably! I believe the attackers were a combination of mostly Saudi with a few Egyptian terrorists mixed in. Many obtained their passports from the Islamic government in Bosnia that was installed after the Clinton administration kicked out the Serbs, so we are a nation of bi-partisan nitwits. Saddam Hussian was a menace to the world, but was also a secularist and enemy of radical Islam. Ironically, the recent "democratic" elections in Iraq have put Islamic fundamentalists in power -- something they could never have accomplished without Bush's assistance. The new government in Iraq has even signed a defense treaty with Iran. Second, the first Iraq war took place, I believe, in 1991 [going from memory, too lazy to look it up], not after 9/11. Since that time, US troops have been continuously stationed throughout the Middle East. There are military bases now in every country in the region of any size except Iran. Several are stationed within the borders of the old Soviet Union! How times have changed! Many of the Islamic faith object to occupation by what they perceive as Christian armies on their sacred ground. I suppose that if we had Islamic troops stationed thorughout the USA, no amount of handing out candy to the children would pacify our population, so we shouldn't be surprised at the outcome over there. My suggestion is that if you want to read a well thought-out rebuttal of the State of the Union address, carefully read George Washington's farewell address. The first George has the latest George beat by a mile in intellect and understanding of international (and domestic) affairs. And unlike our current president, I'll bet he could even pronounce the word "nuclear."
First. No one ever accused Saddam of attacking the United States. That is old and trite nonsense. The point was to destroy an evil dictator and Baathist government that had the will and the means to harm the United States. That's still the issue despite all the redundant and parsed words. Secondly. The USA does not have troops stationed "in every country in the region of any size except Iran". However, the neutralization of Islamic terrorist threats to the United States and Israel requires staging areas and airbases in the region. I doubt that the USA has line troops, much less military bases, in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, North or South Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan, Kashmir, or all of the little emirates in the Persian Gulf. This is a different kind of war. Among other things, this war must be waged while accomodating a great many soft and gullible people on the home front. No doubt, there are relatively small numbers of American forces scattered around the world. They are there because to combat a cryptic and ruthless enemy, American special forces must go pretty much where they please. Much like Asian, Middle Eastern, and European America-haters. Plus, we have been invaded and occupied. Foreign workers and students from the Middle East. Read the recent article in the Smithsonian magazine about the "father" of Islamic terrorism. George Washington was a truly great President, but your remark is nevertheless still silly and misplaced.
