So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?

[Mojo2]

Mojo2, you give the neo-cons' defeated nonsense in far too many sentences. No one in their right mind in the 1950s would have sent an army to Iraq from the US: stupid talk: your false equivalence reeks of neo-con stink.

No one is going to think more words equal "oh, you are right."

No one advocated sending an army to Iraq in the 1950's you dill weed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mojo2, you give the neo-cons' defeated nonsense in far too many sentences. No one in their right mind in the 1950s would have sent an army to Iraq from the US: stupid talk: your false equivalence reeks of neo-con stink.

No one is going to think more words equal "oh, you are right."

No one advocated sending an army to Iraq in the 1950's you dill weed.

You were giving the equivalency of Vietnam, so don't try to fart your way out of it.

The neo-con power is gone. Period.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was the UN. Well, Iraq went to the UN and requested that the Security Council not renew the yearly mandate that approve the presence of foreign forces in Iraq upon its expiration at the end of 2008. So began the Big Bush Bug Out. Once the Americans were gone, it was only a matter of time before the country split along Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish lines.

OF course things were relatively stable. We bought the Sunnis off and we still had tens of thousands of troops in the field. President Bush tied his successors hands. But Bushes hand were tied as well. No US President would allow our troops in a hostile country without immunity from the local laws.

What was the US death toll in Germany, Japan or South Korea last month, year, decade?

I understand the need to blame President Obama for President Bushes monumental blunder of breaking up Iraq. Good luck with your revisionist cause.

The thinking public now realizes that full scale fighting the jihadists in the ME will not keep them from our shores.

Actually what you describe is the UN-THINKING public's conclusion.

I will remind them that Iraq was relatively stable when Obama took office.

Fighting in Iraq kept things pretty stable until BO took charge.

How'd he screw it up, huh?

What we need to refocus our efforts on is not just denying radicals a safe haven from where they can mpount attacks on America and elsewhere, but to making their country a haven of Liberty so those who yearn to breathe free can do so there without them coming here to do their free breathing.

Just like Disneyland built Disney World in FL then they built Disney Europe and Disney Asia.

Those who want the Disney magic don't have to travel as far.

Creating an oasis of Liberty in Iraq is a worthy goal.

And so what if we needed to have our troops stationed there for 50 years until it is truly stable?

We have retained a significant military presence in Japan and Germany since WW!! and there has been no return to militarism by our former foes.

We have maintained a significant military presence in South Korea and they have stayed peaceful since the Korean War.

So, when John McCain talked about keeping troops in Iraq for the next 50 years to maintain the peace long enough for Liberty to become entrenched a lot of reactionaries and no-nothings on the Left freaked out.

When the reality of the situation is that stationing our troops there for the next 50 years is par for the course. It would have been a way of insuring our hard won progress.

But now, with BO, things couldn't be worse than they currently are.

And UN-thinking folks like yourself can draw the mistaken conclusion that our fighting was ineffective.

 

[Mojo2]

Mojo2, you give the neo-cons' defeated nonsense in far too many sentences. No one in their right mind in the 1950s would have sent an army to Iraq from the US: stupid talk: your false equivalence reeks of neo-con stink.

No one is going to think more words equal "oh, you are right."

No one advocated sending an army to Iraq in the 1950's you dill weed.

You were giving the equivalency of Vietnam, so don't try to fart your way out of it.

The neo-con power is gone. Period.

The idea of keeping troops stationed in the countries where we helped rebuild after war did not include the example of Viet Nam where we left in 1975.

We stayed for 50+ years in Germany. Japan and Korea.

We could have easily and successfully done the same in Iraq and we'd not be having this mess to worry about.

But you boys and girlz wanted the exotic Black guy instead of the War hero who knew a thing of two about how to not squander the gains we made there at the price of thousands of US and other lives.

Okay.

So, Obama got the job.

Don't bitch now.

He's your guy.

Support him!

Meanwhile, this is a review of what COULD have been had we elected the RIGHT candidate.

updated 3:09 p.m. EST, Fri February 15, 2008

McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

McCain: referred to a military presence like U.S. has in Japan, Germany, South Korea

"It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "I want them home within 60 days of my becoming president"



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.

This week, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both took McCain to task for the comments, saying that if he's elected he would continue what they call President Bush's failed policies in Iraq.

"It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said to CNN's Larry King.

"And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal -- that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America.

"I won't let that happen."

McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement - CNN.com


"It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said

 

[Mojo2]

It was the UN. Well, Iraq went to the UN and requested that the Security Council not renew the yearly mandate that approve the presence of foreign forces in Iraq upon its expiration at the end of 2008. So began the Big Bush Bug Out. Once the Americans were gone, it was only a matter of time before the country split along Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish lines.

OF course things were relatively stable. We bought the Sunnis off and we still had tens of thousands of troops in the field. President Bush tied his successors hands. But Bushes hand were tied as well. No US President would allow our troops in a hostile country without immunity from the local laws.

What was the US death toll in Germany, Japan or South Korea last month, year, decade?

I understand the need to blame President Obama for President Bushes monumental blunder of breaking up Iraq. Good luck with your revisionist cause.

The thinking public now realizes that full scale fighting the jihadists in the ME will not keep them from our shores.

Actually what you describe is the UN-THINKING public's conclusion.

I will remind them that Iraq was relatively stable when Obama took office.

Fighting in Iraq kept things pretty stable until BO took charge.

How'd he screw it up, huh?

What we need to refocus our efforts on is not just denying radicals a safe haven from where they can mpount attacks on America and elsewhere, but to making their country a haven of Liberty so those who yearn to breathe free can do so there without them coming here to do their free breathing.

Just like Disneyland built Disney World in FL then they built Disney Europe and Disney Asia.

Those who want the Disney magic don't have to travel as far.

Creating an oasis of Liberty in Iraq is a worthy goal.

And so what if we needed to have our troops stationed there for 50 years until it is truly stable?

We have retained a significant military presence in Japan and Germany since WW!! and there has been no return to militarism by our former foes.

We have maintained a significant military presence in South Korea and they have stayed peaceful since the Korean War.

So, when John McCain talked about keeping troops in Iraq for the next 50 years to maintain the peace long enough for Liberty to become entrenched a lot of reactionaries and no-nothings on the Left freaked out.

When the reality of the situation is that stationing our troops there for the next 50 years is par for the course. It would have been a way of insuring our hard won progress.

But now, with BO, things couldn't be worse than they currently are.

And UN-thinking folks like yourself can draw the mistaken conclusion that our fighting was ineffective.

And lookee, lookee heah!

Guess whose idea it was to break Iraq into three parts in 2007?

Your foot in the mouth favorite, Good ol' Jokeman Sen. Joe Biden!

And to see just what even anti-Bush critics were saying about that idea, we call upon Juan Cole, hardly a neo-con, he!

Congress Wants to Split Iraq in Three Pieces, But Who Asked Them?

Congress wants to further mess Iraq up by splitting it into three areas. Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki calls the plan a "disaster."

October 5, 2007

At least Caesar was just commenting on reality when he wrote that "all Gaul is divided into three parts." Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden attempted to create reality when an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate voted for his non-binding resolution to divide Iraq into three parts -- Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish autonomous zones.

Shailagh Murray of the Washington Post reported that the 75-23 Senate vote was "a significant milestone ..., carving out common ground in a debate that has grown increasingly polarized and focused on military strategy." Murray added, "The [tripartite] structure is spelled out in Iraq's constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution."

In Iraq, the plan was termed a "disaster" by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called the Senate resolution "a step toward the breakup of Iraq."

He added, according to Juan Cole's Informed Comment website, "It is a mistake to imagine that such a plan will lead to a reduction in chaos in Iraq; rather, on the contrary, it will lead to an increase in the butchery and a deepening of the crisis of this country, and the spreading of increased chaos, even to neighboring states."

Congress Wants to Split Iraq in Three Pieces, But Who Asked Them? | Alternet

Who knows?

Maybe Bo and Joe collaborated to make Joe's hare-brained scheme a reality.

Kinda like John and Paul throwing Ringo a song or two he could sing on each Beatles album to keep him happy.

 

[KNB]

You still think that there was ever any "success" in Iraq?

Iraq was never a "success". Iraq was never going to be a "success".

The CIA created the modern jihad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shifting the argument merely means you admit you have lost.

Fighting in the ME will not keep the jihadists out of the US.

I have always agreed with a federated Iraq of three states, but I don't think that is possible now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mojo2 in a row boat at the south end of NYC harbor is the answer to "So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?"

 

[Mojo2]

You still think that there was ever any "success" in Iraq?

Iraq was never a "success". Iraq was never going to be a "success".

The CIA created the modern jihad.

Yes, we'd found a way to quell the violence to a great degree such that normal life could be resumed for most Iraqis, IIRC.

In the same way that any war torn land is ever made a success, Iraq isn't so extraordinary that it wouldn't also change over time with enough force being applied to maintaining law and order.

Why would Iraq not follow the successful pattern used repeatedly over the years?

Of course Iraq could be a success!

And you can't deny that Jihad was always going to include America.

Allah didn't say conquer the world for Islam EXCEPT for America.

Pffft.

We have always been on their schedule.

The only thing that changes is the order in which the targets are chosen for attack and the techniques used.

America was never going to avoid Jihad, no matter what lies you'd like people to believe.

 

[Skylar]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?



The fighting in distant Iraq is the exact same fight destined for America.

What do we expect will prevent that fight from being waged on the streets of America?

An ocean?

 

[Mojo2]

Shifting the argument merely means you admit you have lost.

Fighting in the ME will not keep the jihadists out of the US.

I have always agreed with a federated Iraq of three states, but I don't think that is possible now.

Who the f--k cares about winning a freaking debate???

I am trying to help save America.

The point of this thread is to point out that the fighting going on in Iraq is the exact same force that is hoping to fight America and Americans.

Some Americans think because the fighting in Iraq is so far away and that the Jihadi aren't likely to board airliners by the hundreds, all decked out in combat gear and AK-47's and RPG's and landing in America that we are immune to that fighting and that conflict.

I want everyone to know that even as .we are enjoying peace and tranquility here right now, the non-violent fight against ISIS is already here.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?



The fighting in distant Iraq is the exact same fight destined for America.

What do we expect will prevent that fight from being waged on the streets of America?

they are already here

 

[rdean]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?

15,000 miles of sand and ocean.

Aircraft carriers.

A navy.

What else is there to say?

The real question should be "Why are Republicans always so terrified of the messes they create?".

 

[Mojo2]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?



The fighting in distant Iraq is the exact same fight destined for America.

What do we expect will prevent that fight from being waged on the streets of America?

they are already here

I agree.

What I'm doing is a service to those who haven't a clue. I'm trying to help them ease into consciousness re: the threat of Islam rather than just dumping them into the deep end of things.

 

[Mojo2]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?



The fighting in distant Iraq is the exact same fight destined for America.

What do we expect will prevent that fight from being waged on the streets of America?

An ocean?

Not in this day and age.

The answer is, "nothing."

 

[rdean]

So, what stands between the fighting in Iraq and our front door?



The fighting in distant Iraq is the exact same fight destined for America.

What do we expect will prevent that fight from being waged on the streets of America?

An ocean?

Not in this day and age.

The answer is, "nothing."

OK, go bring me a box of sand and see how long it takes you to get there and get back.