Why we are at war against terrorism Options

[realdeal]

Unfortunately some forget, others may simply put it out of their mind since it's been almost 3 years now. But please take a look at the links below to remind yourself.

FIRST PLANE HITS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER


SECOND PLANE HITS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE OF SECOND PLANE HITTING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

CNN RECAP OF 9/11

[Jerry Lewis]

Hello,

Having worked at the WTC site after the attacks, there are no words to describe the devastation that was inflicted upon the city I love. New Yorkers are frequently harsh about their city-it's a shame it requires something like this for us us realize how much we love her.

I support the war in Afghanistan 100 percent. The Taliban were ruling that country and they supported the terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks.

However, the war in Iraq is another matter. I know Saddam is a monster, but it appears we are trying to be the world's policeman again-just like in Vietnam. Not only did we invade Iraq until false pretenses, weapons of mass destruction, but we left the enemy in our rear as we raced to Baghdad to find Saddam. We have an inadequate amount of troops to do the job right. Our invasion has only opened the door to incursion by Iran-the real threat-and have displayed a total ignorance of the history and demographic conditions of the Middle East.

Now we find ourselves in a damned if we do and damned and if don't position. We are damned if we stay-with our inadequate force-and damned if we leave.

Now the great hypocrit, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war states we should pull out. Unfortunately, this would be a tragic mistake. President Bush refuses to give Iraq the amount of force necessary to succeed.

Thanks to our blundering opium production is at an all time high in Afghanistan and professional people who can afford to leave Iraq are doing so in great numbers. By the time we leave Iraq it will be bled dry and our enemies will declare victory. No more Junior Presidents.



Jerry Lewis

[Glyn Gardner]

Hello,

Having worked at the WTC site after the attacks, there are no words to describe the devastation that was inflicted upon the city I love. New Yorkers are frequently harsh about their city-it's a shame it requires something like this for us us realize how much we love her.

I support the war in Afghanistan 100 percent. The Taliban were ruling that country and they supported the terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks.

However, the war in Iraq is another matter. I know Saddam is a monster, but it appears we are trying to be the world's policeman again-just like in Vietnam. Not only did we invade Iraq until false pretenses, weapons of mass destruction, but we left the enemy in our rear as we raced to Baghdad to find Saddam. We have an inadequate amount of troops to do the job right. Our invasion has only opened the door to incursion by Iran-the real threat-and have displayed a total ignorance of the history and demographic conditions of the Middle East.

Now we find ourselves in a damned if we do and damned and if don't position. We are damned if we stay-with our inadequate force-and damned if we leave.

Now the great hypocrit, Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war states we should pull out. Unfortunately, this would be a tragic mistake. President Bush refuses to give Iraq the amount of force necessary to succeed.

Thanks to our blundering opium production is at an all time high in Afghanistan and professional people who can afford to leave Iraq are doing so in great numbers. By the time we leave Iraq it will be bled dry and our enemies will declare victory. No more Junior Presidents.



Jerry Lewis

Just some food for thought. We all know the bad guys wanna kill as many Americans as they can. We also know that a hell of alot of them are trying to kill Amerticans with tanks, APCs, cannons, grenade launchers, and M16's in Iraq. Now I'm former mil, and my wife is active duty. We both knew the risks of joining. We'd both rather fight the bad guys in Iraq, where no inocent Americans will get killed. I know that sounds harsh, but all those little IED making bastards would be trying to figure out ways to get here, if they weren't fighting there. Better to hold a war in someone else's back yard, and not your own.

[Hellfighter]

Just some food for thought. We all know the bad guys wanna kill as many Americans as they can. We also know that a hell of alot of them are trying to kill Amerticans with tanks, APCs, cannons, grenade launchers, and M16's in Iraq. Now I'm former mil, and my wife is active duty. We both knew the risks of joining. We'd both rather fight the bad guys in Iraq, where no inocent Americans will get killed. I know that sounds harsh, but all those little IED making bastards would be trying to figure out ways to get here, if they weren't fighting there. Better to hold a war in someone else's back yard, and not your own.

Ok, Hellfighter took a break- but for all the masochistic fans of his legendary biblical length posts, now another - a rehash of former points, with some fresh input on the heels of yesterday's election. I'm guessing a hornet's nest will be stirred up again here- amicably of course ;-


Those bad guys are killing not just americans, but everyone who wants to see Iraq turn into a nation of democratic free-will; ie, kill everyone else who doesn't have psycopathic murderous tendencies like themselves. They kill Iraqi police [over 100 in October], soldiers. officials- they set of maximum effect explosives in market places to mow down people/kids/old folk by the dozens who are simply just going out to buy dinner.

Now I'm back in this resurrected thread. More due to what with the shakeup in the election yesterday.

Like I stated, I was for the move to go into Iraq- not out of the misguided, presumptive notion sadamn was involved in 911 but out of fear reports of wmd was worth the gamble- particularly since sadamn played poker with the world and not allowing full inspection to once and for all prove to everyone there were no wmd threats as put forth by the neo-cons and devious iraqi dissidents at that crucial opening stage. While I personally don't agree with the war being for oil argument [simply because there would be no war if sadamn had let in the UN inspectors to see there was no wmds there- like Wellington wouldn't havefought a battle of Waterloo if his Prussian allies didn't promise to come and crucially help him beat Napoleon], one might be suspicious with the increase of airstrikes on Iraqi radar/AA positions in the months before thw war... something was in the air.

I made my point how I was optimistic that up to taking Baghdad, the military did their job expertly, but then Bush and coy blew the advantage and initial welcome by in fact showing there was ineptness in not having a temporary infrastructure set up to smooth a secure transition to a post-sadamn leadership in Iraq. Rumsfeld and his casual grinning demeanour blowing off the first initial criticisms of insecurity at that time disturbed me. Then it was infuriating to see the show of bravado by the neo-cons when the real innocent death toll started to significantly mount-> iraqi police recruits continuously massacred while waiting to sign-up, locals in fear of mob rule in the streets due to a near-total disbandment of Iraqi military, and then a very slow adoption of super armoured vehicles for US troops due to the same air of smugness by Rumsfeld not conceding there was indeed a problem -more innocent young and old heroes dying/maimed. Then in their cockyness neo-cons babbled about invading Syria, and Iran! more backyards/more innocent lives. Keep in mind too that Rumsfeld offered to resign early on in the war and Bush wanted to hear nothing of it. I'm just hearing now Rumsfeld is resigning - too little too late.

All indications are, that yesterday's election results point to a vote against Bush's policy. Although the more extreme elements of repubs put me off, I find the democrats a bit laughable considering themselves competent when they still haven't put forth a good exit strategy for Iraq. No discussion comes up concerning the reality. While dispensable pee-on suicide bombers endlessly flood into Iraq, the Talibums are resurging their influnce in Afghanistan- a crucial point I've noticed nearly ignored by all US major news networks. Can't imagine that the real terrorist hierarchy aren't breathing a sigh of relief now that we've taken our eye of the ball - the 'real' area we should've finished mopping up. It's like the classical military strategy to send a feint somewhere far away to divide the opponents forces and weaken their effectiveness on both Fronts. Well we're all hoping to see a constructive coalition adopted between the repubs and democrats [and Liebermann]. as it stands in my opinion too many innocent soldiers and civilians are dying with the indecisive attitudes of both partys.... 'stay the course' won't work since the enemy have unlimited pee-on volunteer martyrs, and the democrats need to start itemizing what the exit strategy is otherwise we'll end up 'staying the course' with no other valid options available.

Sure, I agree about taking on war-mongerors in their backyard.... but not starting a dust-up [let alone endlessly protracting it] with war-mongerors in the yard of folks who themselves aren't the war-mongerors. Let's get back to mopping up Afghanistan totally and 'inspiring' Pakistan to totally root out the al-kooka leadershi* - the real global threat.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 11/08/06 1:12pm