The Iraqi Civil War - Thank You Bush!

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Moen1305, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I thought my plan was good. :mouth: I even emailed it to the DoD. Hope to start work on the new base soon.
     
  2. Guardian

    Guardian New Member

    Now that you have resorted to talking to yourself, I will have to admiit that this is possibly the best idea you have had while being here on this forum.:whistle:
     
  3. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Moen let us know if you get a reply LOL it is a good idea mate :thumb:

    De Orc :kewl:
     
  4. Pepperoni

    Pepperoni New Member

    TRY this

    You use the Biden plan, the Kurds will declare themselves Kurdistan and try to grab the piece of Turkey that they have been using. Turkey has said they will not find this acceptable. It was tri sected this way at one time before the Brits made it one large country. Only one group wishes to rule and they will fight until all agree one is the stronger, or they will continue to fight. All of Iraq is up for grabs, and who gets the prize will be interesting.
    If Iran gets involved they are liable to be in the fight rather then in control . That is about where we are. Letting Iran help might be a solution to us moving down the road and let them be totally distracted while we watch. Kind of like playing darts with a swinging board from a teather. Lots of questions, " we have a plan"
    where is the plan ? Any plan from anyone ?
    The lights dim and we continue to have at least a dozen or more wars going on in the world at any one time for as far back as anyone can see.
     
  5. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Naw, they'll probably just steal my idea and say they planned on doing this all along. Lousy DoD! :computer:
     
  6. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Patent it quickly :whistle:

    De Orc :kewl:
     
  7. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Respectfully disagree...

    Iraq and Afghanistan are the front lines against islamic jihad and the war on terrorism. Our G.I.'s are fighting against these animals 'there' instead of 'here'. I for one thank God that there are men and woman that are willing to take the fight to these jihadists instead of waiting for them to hit us here.

    As for length of wars, the above list did not take into account the years under U.S. occupation. After WWII, we did not immediately pull out of Germany and let the Wolfpacks run wild. We stayed until Germany could get back on her feet. It took YEARS! It was only when the German civilians woke up and stated, "enough is enough" was when THEY took action to police and go after the hate within their communities.

    Even back in the Far East after the Spainish American War, as late as 1911 we had to deal with 'insurgents' in the Philapines and what did General Pushing do? He rounded up a bunch of these muslim insurgents, soaked the bullets in pig's blood, and shot all but one as they fell into a pit of pig's guts and blood...obviously a major turn off for the 72 virgins in allah's paradise. We did not have to deal with these 'insurgents' for almost 50 years.

    The point is, fighting still continues far after the last battle. Maybe no where in numbers like a full war, but it does happen! Shoot...after Washington won at Yorktown, the peace treaty wasn't finalized for another year and a half!...and people died.

    As for the mess in Iraq...this is what happens when you fight a "law & order" war. If a jihadist fires his AK47 from a mosque, silly me...IT ISN'T a FREAKIN MOSQUE ANYMORE, so it should then be made into a "Wal-Mart parking lot". The same holds true for schools and other "peaceful" structures. What about these stupid "rules" of engagement? We can't attack a certain city because muslims deem it holy!?! How ridiculous is that?!?!

    I guess our cities like St. Paul and St. Louis are now off limits to muslim terrorists because we deemed them 'holy'...right??? Suuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee.

    Face it...this is a world war. I get it. I support the fight against the most intolerant major religion on this earth...islam. The question is, do you?
     
  8. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    I have to totaly agree, I dont care where the person is who is shooting at our boys they should be allowed to shoot back, anything less is pure stupidity. The British army won a war against comunist insurgents in Malaya by using there own tactics against them and were castigated for it (But it worked) today if we took the gloves off I hate to imagine at the hand wringing and wailing there would be world wide LOL

    De Orc :D
     
  9. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Good to have you back Midas! I always like reading your posts because you put some thought into them and you stake out a position and stand by it. I don't always agree with you but you are civil just the same.

    Speaking of disagreeing with you, the war on terrorism can have no real frontlines in the traditional sense. In Iraq for example, the US military has said that Al Qaeda accounts for a mere couple of percent of the violence in the country. I believe the military when they make this claim even if Bush doesn't acknowledge the fact. The Al Qaeda related fighters have been drawn there because we are there, their numbers wouldn't translate into the number of Al Qaeda fighters attempting to come over here and do us harm. The military says that most of the soldiers that die in Iraq are the result of insurgents fighting a civil war not from Al Qaeda fighters so we are losing our men and women and not making ourselves any safer.

    The "war on terror" needs to be fought with more than bombs and bullets. It needs to be fought with better ideals and smarter strategies. This war is unlike any kind of war that this or any other country as had to fight. You can't bomb it of the map. You can't overrun it's lines. You can't capture it's territory. It must be defeated with strategic use of weapons, intelligence capabilities, and an alternative to the idea of terrorism.

    Occupying a country after a war is a given. Often called the second phase of the conflict and almost always the longer part. Depending on the reason for the conflict, the occupation can last years or decades. I propose that a war on terrorism is more analegous to the second phase of a traditional conflict rather than the initial conflict phase and should be thought of in these terms. The military has proved itself time and time again useless after the initial phase of a conflict has ended and usually contributes to the resentment of the local population. Viewing this war as a traditional soldier on soldier type conflict misses the opportunity to understand the enemy we have to defeat.

    It's correct to label this a world war in that we need to consider the width and breath of the global conflict. The more traditional use of the term world war is still possible if we continue to think of this war on terror with yesterday's mindset. If we make the mistake of fighting this war the way Al Qaeda thinks we'll fight it, in other words, the way we always do, they will continue to grow in strength and numbers. We are not dealing with stupid people here. They know us very well maybe better than we know ourselves. Lets not play into their hands by being predictable bullies and thugs as our current leaders have already attempted. It's a strategy for failure and we can't afford to fail.

    Everyone should support the fight against this radical fringe element and anyone that supports them. I get that. Do you understand why a new smarter approach is needed?
     
  10. Guardian

    Guardian New Member

    The time has come and HE has risen! The time is now that our savior has returned to lead us to his domain!
    It was written that no one would expect him, or know him when he came, but I sure didn't think his name woud be written as MOEN. All right every body................... :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
     
  11. Danr

    Danr New Member

    extreme hyperbole
     
  12. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Why?

    De Orc :kewl:
     
  13. Danr

    Danr New Member

    It is hyperbole to claim the Iraq war goes back that far.
     
  14. Guardian

    Guardian New Member

    Someone has found a new word,....someone has found a new word! La-la-la-la won't we have fun now?:p
     
  15. Danr

    Danr New Member

    it is a pretty apt use of the term.
     
  16. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Am I missing something here ? 'It is hyperbole to claim the Iraq war goes back that far' how far back is this claim ?.

    De Orc :confused:
     
  17. Danr

    Danr New Member

    de orc, take a peek back at what Midas was responding to (look at the Moen quote that he was answering).
     
  18. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Sorry Danr I honestly cant see what you are getting at LOL, can I ask that you (and I hate saying this lOL) cut and paste the relivent section :eek:

    De Orc :confused:
     
  19. Danr

    Danr New Member

    this is what Midas was talking about
     
  20. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Personaly I would say that the Iraq war goes back to the Gulf war it never realy stopped, we had troops involved in operations all the way up to the invasion.

    De Orc :)

    Ps thanks for pointing out what you were talking about.
     

Share This Page