Argue With Everyone Political Forums  

Go Back   Argue With Everyone Political Forums > Specific Political Issues > War in Iraq

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:03 AM
Areyouforreal's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,418
Default Validating Al Qaeda's Iraq Strategy

Validating Al Qaeda's Iraq Strategy
by Joseph Farah

Posted: 02/28/2007

Dick Cheney said it: The congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Nancy Pelosi protested. She phoned President Bush, but was reportedly unable to reach him.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," said Pelosi.

But Cheney is right. It's not rocket science. It's simple common sense.
"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman (John) Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

How can anyone argue that is exactly the effect of a premature pullout from Iraq?

You can argue we never should have gone.

You can argue we fought ineffectively, with too many restrictions on our troops and rules of engagement.

You can argue that we're not getting any good intelligence from prisoners since Abu Ghraib and the new rules against coercive interrogations.

You can argue that we don't have enough troops.

But you can't argue that even the debate about leaving soon gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It would be nice if it were not so, but wishing and hoping won't change reality.

When this war reached its second stage -- after the fall of Saddam -- Al Qaeda sent thousands of terrorists to Iraq to ensure the Americans would have no easy time of it during the occupation. President Bush openly welcomed this prospect -- bringing the terrorists from all over the world to fight on the battlefield of our choosing.

This is what we have been witnessing for the last two years in Iraq. Al Qaeda blows up a Shiite mosque. The Shiites take revenge on the Sunnis. The Sunnis take more revenge on the Shiites. But it all starts with Al Qaeda's calculated efforts.

Al Qaeda is loving the great debate taking place in Washington.

This is what it was banking on when it bet so heavily on the Iraq battlefield. It was counting on Americans being unwilling to accept a long, drawn-out foreign war. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri studied Vietnam. They know better what happened there than many members of Congress do.

They understand American troops don't lose wars, but American politicians do. They were counting on a replay of Vietnam in Iraq and they are getting it.

Pelosi, bless her soul, is suggesting that it is unacceptable to look at this conflict from the point of view of the enemy. That is always a mistake. It is one of the fundamental mistakes of Vietnam, and she is trying hard to repeat it.

"I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate."

What has no place in our debate? Looking at our proposed moves in Iraq through the eyes of the enemy -- something absolutely essential in warfare?

What happens in Iraq has consequences -- not just for that country of 25 million Arabs, but for the entire region of the Middle East and for our own national security.

Al Qaeda chose to make Iraq the mother of all battles. We accepted the challenge. There is no backing down now for us. If we do, we are inviting horrors that most Americans cannot even imagine.

If we back down now, we will be telling the whole world, including the Islamic world where bin Laden has extraordinary support already, that he won and we lost. We will be telling the world that Osama kicked our butts. We will be telling the world that we got bloody in Iraq and had enough.

That will be the biggest public relations boost the jihadists got since 9/11


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19614
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:35 AM
Kix's Avatar
Kix Kix is offline
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Outside OKC
Posts: 4,346
Default

Picture this...

Dick Cheney decides to run for President in '08 and he wins.
Half the Democrat seats in both houses become available when those holding those seats implode.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 08:59 AM
Political Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 825
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kix View Post
Picture this...

Dick Cheney decides to run for President in '08 and he wins.
Half the Democrat seats in both houses become available when those holding those seats implode.
Dick Cheney doesn't have the guts, balls, intestinal fortitude, backbone or bravery to run for President.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 09:26 AM
Eternal Footman's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Evening
Posts: 2,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prisoner1 View Post
Dick Cheney doesn't have the guts, balls, intestinal fortitude, backbone or bravery to run for President.

Last I heard, it doesn't take balls to run for President. Also, many from the left have argued that he already has Presidential power.
__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 09:40 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prisoner1 View Post
Dick Cheney doesn't have the guts, balls, intestinal fortitude, backbone or bravery to run for President.
I don't think any of that is a factor. It probably has more to do with him not standing a chance of winning.

Since you haven't run for president would you say you have none of those attributes as well?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 09:59 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Footman View Post
Last I heard, it doesn't take balls to run for President.
Monica objects!
__________________
Standing on the corner,
Suitcase in my hand,
Jack is in his corset and Jane is in her vest,
And me, I'm in a Rock & Roll band.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:31 PM
I_Hate_the_Nazi_Right's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,355
Default

So you keep sending in American men and women into a meat grinder and to what end???

Not ONE of you neocons can give a defined example of what WINNING in Iraq is... reason? because there was never a plan for winning from the beginning. You cannot achieve a goal when no goal is set in from of you...

Chew on that one for awhile assholes and get back to me when you have a viable success defintion for the war in Iraq.
__________________
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

John Adams from the " Treaty of Tripoly, article 11
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:35 PM
Lookagain's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: earth
Posts: 6,971
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Hate_the_Nazi_Right View Post
So you keep sending in American men and women into a meat grinder and to what end???

Not ONE of you neocons can give a defined example of what WINNING in Iraq is... reason? because there was never a plan for winning from the beginning. You cannot achieve a goal when no goal is set in from of you...

Chew on that one for awhile assholes and get back to me when you have a viable success defintion for the war in Iraq.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:58 PM
Eternal Footman's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Evening
Posts: 2,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Hate_the_Nazi_Right View Post
So you keep sending in American men and women into a meat grinder and to what end???

Not ONE of you neocons can give a defined example of what WINNING in Iraq is... reason? because there was never a plan for winning from the beginning. You cannot achieve a goal when no goal is set in from of you...

Chew on that one for awhile assholes and get back to me when you have a viable success defintion for the war in Iraq.
The goal was to remove Saddam and establish a demoratic govt.

As for the meat grinder, do you also oppose American babies being born? There are, afterall, more murders in the US than there are US soldier deaths in a year in Iraq.
__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


» Navigation

Political Links Page

Blogs by AWE Members

Advertisers support this site - if you're interested in their product, take a look!


$5 monthly donation:

$10 monthly donation:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0