I respectfully recommend a book [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Okla-homey

8/6/2006, 12:23 PM

By Ralph Peters. Peters is a brilliant, non-partisan retired Army O-5 who has earned the respect of a great many military leaders. Whether you oppose the war or not, you should read this book. It explores areas which are of vital importance in these perilous times. Major issues explored:

* Was Iraq worth it? What's the truth behind the politics?
* How do Islamist terrorists themselves see this global struggle?
* Are our defense dollars buying a strong military--or the wrong military?
* Are we missing great opportunities elsewhere while hypnotized by the Middle East?
* When it comes to understanding terrorism, are Darwin and religion two halves of one answer?
* Must we accept that Islam itself is the problem?
* Will we face a war with China? What would such a war mean?
* Can Washington ever learn from its mistakes?

I would like to recommend this book to anyone who would like to read a clear-eyed, impartial and spot-on review of how we got here, where we're headed, and why things are liable to get worse before they get better.

I also happen to concur with his thesis that despite what politicians and policy wonks say, this is not a "war of ideas." It is a war over religion and ethnicity. I also agree with Peters we face an implacable foe who will not be converted to our way of thinking.

That makes this war more "old testament" than the 20th wars over ideology (fascism vs. democracy, capitalism vs. communism, etc.) IOW, you can convert former nazi's, and communists when they are faced with defeat on the battlefield and faced with the stark truth that their way is fatally flawed. The proof can be found in the modern states of Russia, the former Soviet states, Eastern Europe, Germany, Italy and Japan.

OTOH, you can't convert a religious zealot who believes he is obeying God when he blows-up a kindergarten, subway or much worse. Further, when that zealot believes in his "martyrdom" he is actually getting a "promotion" you are faced with precisely two choices: Kill him or die yourself.

Peters says the only way to defeat a foe who, if presented with a button which if pressed would kill every American woman and child instantly and would do so without hesitation -- and consider it God's will, is to kill him first.

I also agree with Peters that quitting now will save no lives. It will only lead to more devastating attacks on our soil because the jihaadis will not quit until Israel is wiped-off the map, the West is in ashes and their theocracy controls the globe.

People who have not advanced beyond the notion that is right and good to "kill for God" just have to be exterminated if we are to have peace.

He points out OBL has declared that Iraq is now the center of gravity where Al-Q efforts shall be focused. This makes Iraq a handy place, far from our shores and our babies, to kill jihaadis.

The good news is Peters, like me, believes America will prevail because he has confidence in Americans. He writes that the average American can and will come to understand this is an "us or them" fight and the reason it started (WMD's, etc.) is really of no moment. Its here, we're in it for the long-haul, and people who oppose the war because they hate George Bush are of course free to do so, but their ire is misplaced.

Peters BTW, is no Bush homer. He is critical of the administration in many areas. He supports the administration however, in its policy of sticking because we simply can't afford to quit now.

Most importantly, as I've already said, its okay to admit this about fundamentalist Islam versus the West. Plain and simple.

I like Ralph Peters. He has written far better than I have what I've believed since the beginning. Do yourself a favor. Give it a look.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/6588/ccccccccx11924gb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

KaiserSooner

8/6/2006, 03:23 PM

I'm really torn on this whole Iraq thing...it's really frustrating.

I agree with your (and, I guess, the author's) general point that an immediate withdrawal or a set timetable for withdrawal is not the solution for Iraq, although it is no worse than the Bush Administration's status quo.

I'm no fan of nation-building. I detest it, especially when such projects are in the hands of the wrong people....and the Bush Admin folks are the wrong people, IMO. However, the US has made a committment to Iraq, to help them build a better nation-state than was there before 2003, and I think the US should keep its word...not doing so (keeping our word) would be diplomatically disastrous and crippling. All the liberty and freedom rhetoric Washington spewed toward the Saddam-less Iraqis back in 2003 will ring as empty and broken promises by the US....and only further empowering religious fundamentalis.

Which is a good reason why the US should blink before making such promises in the first place.

Washington and the Bush admin didn't blink...they made this very serious committment wrecklessly and glibly, without realizing what the hell they were doing or to the extent they were truly setting themselves and the US up for failure. Now, the Bush admin has no credibility, no political capital to correct the mistakes they've made. So, IMO, it'll take a future administration to clean up the mess the Bush people have wrought on us and the world. And to do so requires an administration that will be brutally honest with the American public as to what such a committment will require. Bush and his people, obviously haven't done this. Rather, they led the public to believe it'd be quick and painless, and done on the cheap, a la Rumsfeld.

That was wreckless on their part. And, frankly, criminal. I can only wish those in the Bush administration responsible for this mess will have an afterlife that includes truly feeling the pain of all the blood that has been spilled and the families that have been destroyed in the name of their hubristic military adventures.

StoopTroup

8/6/2006, 03:34 PM

So Kaiser...

Are you gonna read the book?

SicEmBaylor

8/6/2006, 03:42 PM

I am conflicted as well. Let me preface all of this that I do not believe for a minute that President Bush purposely lied or misled the nation into going to war. That's just hysterical nonsense from the left.

2000 was the first year that I could legally vote, and my vote went to George W. Bush. Part of my reasoning was that beside his campaign rhetoric where he said he woudl not be an interventionist, I had faith that he would stop dicking around with Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Even back in 2000, I voted for Bush on the belief that he would, in some way, go to war with Iraq.

However, after Sept. 11th I thought it would have been a much better and more logical idea to invade Iran rather than Iraq. Iran really sparked this modern era of terrorism against these United States and remain the largest supporter of terrorism abroad against both us and Israel.

Iraq, on the other hand, still remained a threat but in a more "conventional" state v. state threat. They did have terrorist ties but nothing like Iran and the state itself was fairly secular. I now think it would have been a better idea to leave Saddam in place as a "secular" buffer to the more fundamentalist Iran.

I used to also buy into the theory that the US is powerful enough to force the idea and desire down the throats of those who have never known it, but I've since abandoned those ideas. I've done so in large part because of my good friend who graduated first in his graduate class at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies. It's a national hotbed of neo-conservative thinking so he's well aquainted with the arguments and his professors, while he disagreed with them, thought enough of him that he graduated 1st in his class. (This is the guy homey accused of being a troll-me which is a compliment).

After many many long nights arguing these issues with him, I have radically changed my mind on many of these issues. I wish us the best in Iraq but I don't see how it could ever possibly be successful. I think the minute we pull out the nation will be plunged into civil war and the result will be a fundamentalist regime.

He's also convinced me of his big concern that we're allowing the threat of terrorism to become disproportionate to the actual threat it represents. His HUGE concern is not with mid-east terrorism but with China and a possible resurgent Russia which we may be ignoring to our own peril.

I would love to see Iraq a success, democracy bloom, and freedom take root. If 20 years from now I can visiting an economically booming Baghdad and stay in a nice western style hotel and see the ancient ruins of Babylon then this whole venture may have been worht it. I'm just not optomistic.

Okla-homey

8/6/2006, 04:29 PM

my comments imbedded.

I used to also buy into the theory that the US is powerful enough to force the idea and desire down the throats of those who have never known it, but I've since abandoned those ideas. Why the confusion? Democracy can only flourish in secular states. If the clerics are in charge, there can be no democracy. Its really a pretty basic concept.. I've done so in large part because of my good friend who graduated first in his graduate class at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies. It's a national hotbed of neo-conservative thinking so he's well aquainted with the arguments and his professors, while he disagreed with them, thought enough of him that he graduated 1st in his class. (This is the guy homey accused of being a troll-me which is a compliment). Glad you changed your mind, but there are hundreds of thousands of Army and MC privates, and AF airmen who have done a tour of duty in that region of the world who understand that and they didn't have to go hang out with a bunch of ivory tower academic jag-offs to figure it out.;)

After many many long nights arguing these issues with him, I have radically changed my mind on many of these issues. I wish us the best in Iraq but I don't see how it could ever possibly be successful. I think the minute we pull out the nation will be plunged into civil war and the result will be a fundamentalist regime. Who said pull-out? We'll have a least a division-size force complete with air there for at least a generation. Book it.

He's also convinced me of his big concern that we're allowing the threat of terrorism to become disproportionate to the actual threat it represents. His HUGE concern is not with mid-east terrorism but with China and a possible resurgent Russia which we may be ignoring to our own peril. China will either have to grow its economy or collapse inward. Until they are willing to let their currency float on the international market, they aren't going to be able sustain economic growth either. Fortunately, without a blue-water navy, all they will be able to do is make mischief if they decide to cross swords with the US. We could defeat them militarily if we had to. We coud do that by blockade of their ports and denial of their ability to trade. As long as the US Navy controls the Pacific sea lanes, the dragon will remain caged. Unlike our Arab enemies, they have no friendly neighbors who are willing to do business with them overland through porous borders.

I would love to see Iraq a success, democracy bloom, and freedom take root. If 20 years from now I can visiting an economically booming Baghdad and stay in a nice western style hotel and see the ancient ruins of Babylon then this whole venture may have been worht it. I'm just not optomistic.
I don't expect them to develop a perfect democracy. Not even a New Jersey or Chicago-style democracy. heck, it took us 20 years to get it right following the rise of our patriot movement. The Iraqis just need to crack it and show the rest of the secular middle eastern states it is possible to have a form of democracy, suited to the Arab context. That will not be possible if the jihaadis are able to slaughter any nascent government in its baby crib. That is why we have to stay. to keep the baby governemnt alive for 20 years or so, and to kill jihaadis

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 04:36 PM

Looks like a fantastic book Homey.

I wish I knew the solution to make this all go away easily and peacfully, but thats just not going to happen.

Many many people are going to need to lay down their lives in ensure this threat never harms our children.

Unfortunatly, I don't know if the US can survive a prolonged conflict with the media doing its best shilling for the other side and against the administration, and when you have a democratic party becoming ever more extreamist by the day. If the dims take a majority in the congress, it will but a witchhunt on Bush trying to remove him from office, and will do its damn best to retreat from this war (or redeploy to victory as they call it) and make this a local cop issue as was the case in 1990s.

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 04:42 PM

I'm no fan of nation-building. I detest it, especially when such projects are in the hands of the wrong people....and the Bush Admin folks are the wrong people, IMO.

And who would be the "right" people?

Those people like John F Kerry who can't even figure out what he stands for on a given day? That dumbass has had so many positions on the war he couldn't even explain it. Thus his loss in 2004.

Which is a good reason why the US should blink before making such promises in the first place.

Nice way of putting it, however, since you fail to acknowlege any history pre-Bush, I suggest looking back at the promises made in the 90's. You know, before Bush was President.

Try clicking on my sig for a starting place.

TUSooner

8/6/2006, 06:01 PM

***[Y]ou can't convert a religious zealot who believes he is obeying God when he blows-up a kindergarten, subway or much worse. Further, when that zealot believes in his "martyrdom" he is actually getting a "promotion" you are faced with precisely two choices: Kill him or die yourself.

Peters says the only way to defeat a foe who, if presented with a button which if pressed would kill every American woman and child instantly and would do so without hesitation -- and consider it God's will, is to kill him first.

I also agree with Peters that quitting now will save no lives. It will only lead to more devastating attacks on our soil because the jihaadis will not quit until Israel is wiped-off the map, the West is in ashes and their theocracy controls the globe.

People who have not advanced beyond the notion that is right and good to "kill for God" just have to be exterminated if we are to have peace....
That's some ugly truth. But somewhere down the line, we need to find a way to stop the "jihadi" production line. Jihadis are made, not born. We need to create conditions where young people and especially young parents, see something more hopeful for themselves and their children than a flaming martyrdom. (A peaceful and proserous Iraq might be a good start.) Otherwise, we are fighting the Hydra, that multi-headed mythical beast that grew another head (or 2) whever one of its heads was cut off.

StoopTroup

8/6/2006, 06:17 PM

That's some ugly truth. But somewhere down the line, we need to find a way to stop the "jihadi" production line. Jihadis are made, not born. We need to create conditions where young people and especially young parents, see something more hopeful for themselves and their children than a flaming martyrdom. (A peaceful and proserous Iraq might be a good start.) Otherwise, we are fighting the Hydra, that multi-headed mythical beast that grew another head (or 2) whever one of its heads was cut off.
If they would just let us show them the good minimum wage has done here in America, they would all live like Burger Kings.

OCUDad

8/6/2006, 07:08 PM

Homey, based on your recommendation, I just ordered that book from Amazon and look forward to reading it. From your description of the book and the author, it sounds like a reasoned analysis of the situation, and reasoned analyses are rare -- especially on the South Oval.:rolleyes:

Given that we are in Iraq, I too see no good result from a premature withdrawal. We can't unring the bell: we're there and we ought to finish the job - or at least come as close to "finishing" as is possible in that area of the world. Can you summarize Peters' thoughts on whether we should have gone in there in the first place?

I appreciate reasoned analysis, not "hysterical nonsense" from the right or left. I'd like to hear the issues explained and debated, not the "you dimz suck - no, you pubz suck" kind of bologna that detracts from the issues. From what I can see, neither the right nor the left has yet cornered the market on stupidity.:pop:

Okla-homey

8/6/2006, 07:12 PM

jk the sooner fan

8/6/2006, 07:28 PM

"criminal"

wow.......

OCUDad

8/6/2006, 08:02 PM

It doesn't really matter now anyway. What matters is we must remain engaged.In the here and now, I agree, it does not matter at all. It matters to me from the point of view that we might learn something for future reference. As a historian, aren't you a little interested?

Okla-homey

8/6/2006, 09:07 PM

In the here and now, I agree, it does not matter at all. It matters to me from the point of view that we might learn something for future reference. As a historian, aren't you a little interested?

I read the book almost a year ago, but I believe he ascribed to the view held by most of us at the time, that Saddam was on the verge of developing a nuke. We also believed he had WMD's in the form of chem and bio he was willing to export. I think the chem and bio stuff made it out the back door to Syria in time.

StoopTroup

8/6/2006, 09:10 PM

Tim Russert tore Condi a new B**t-hole on Meat the Press IMO.

Okla-homey

8/6/2006, 10:00 PM

Here's some classic Ralph Peters:

...Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.

As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

And they won't all be conservatives.

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:08 PM

Amen. That guy couldn't be more correct in his analysis.

Unfortunatly, I think this is a lesson we are going to have to live thru.

KaiserSooner

8/6/2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by KaiserSooner
Which is a good reason why the US should blink before making such promises in the first place.

Nice way of putting it, however, since you fail to acknowlege any history pre-Bush, I suggest looking back at the promises made in the 90's. You know, before Bush was President.

How do I fail to acknowledge pre-Bush history? Re-read what you quoted of me above. I say the US, not W.

Ash

8/6/2006, 10:16 PM

Here's some classic Ralph Peters

The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves. :

Yup, definitely non-partisan.

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:19 PM

How do I fail to acknowledge pre-Bush history? Re-read what you quoted of me above. I say the US, not W.
I guess I should have quoted the paragraph after that, about how Bush didn't blink. Even though it took him a good year to go to war, with massive backing by the people, the media, and the congress.

Again, this had been in the works ever since the end of the first gulf war. The plans for after an invasion of Iraq had been in place just as long, however they contridicted Rumsfelds doctrine of smaller forces and new technology, and Iraq was the stage for this. Also, the fact that we are fighting AQ & Iran's proxy Sadr wasn't expected I would suspect. Mistakes were made, but they are in every war. Nevertheless, more than 1 million people have served in Iraq and we have lost 2500 of that million, and given them a governement elected by their people and put Saddam on trail by their courts. To say that is criminal and that the administration should be ashamed of trying to do the right thing is beyond stupid IMO.

yermom

8/6/2006, 10:19 PM

you know Homey, that sounds like a lot of Dim bashing...

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:21 PM

Yup, definitely non-partisan.

Facts are facts though. Those are the people that have their head so far in the sand they can't see that we are at war and with whom we are at war with.

Look at the name of the book, then ask yourself who are the ones who want to pack it up, run home to mommy and focus on impeaching Bush, solving global warming, etc.

BTW, I notice you didn't bold his kind words for Bush.

yermom

8/6/2006, 10:26 PM

if by "facts" you mean "generalized opinions and speculation"

Ash

8/6/2006, 10:27 PM

Facts are facts though.

BTW, I notice you didn't bold his kind words for Bush.

You could dispute whether all of that was fact. But that wasn't my point, he was described as impartial but the quote seems to me be anything but impartial.

He did take some shots at the administration, too. But the vitriol was directed at Democrats.

I agree with the fact that we're knee deep in sh** and need to see it through to a solution that benefits America's national security. I just don't hear anything (from either side) that seems to be leading us toward that goal.

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:28 PM

if by "facts" you mean "generalized opinions and speculation"
So explain Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Sheehan, Moore, Dean...

Should I go on? :pop:

yermom

8/6/2006, 10:30 PM

so all "dims" agree with them on everything?

there are wackjobs that want us to fail in Iraq

do you agree with everything that every right-wing nutjob thinks or says?

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:30 PM

You could dispute whether all of that was fact.
Yeah, not really.

Just ask this guy...

http://www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2004-president/images/lieberman.gif

OklahomaTuba

8/6/2006, 10:32 PM

so all "dims" agree with them on everything?

there are wackjobs that want us to fail in Iraq

do you agree with everything that every right-wing nutjob thinks or says?

No, I see your point, but I was speaking on a basis of those who represent the folks, not the folks themselves.

I don't want to offend anyone in particular, but someone does vote these people in, and vote the good ones out (Joe).

KaiserSooner

8/6/2006, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Okla-homey
Here's some classic Ralph Peters

The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves. :
Yup, definitely non-partisan.

A ha. The classic stab in the back theory.

The German Right Wing of the 1920s and early 1930s used such a theory (die Dolchstosslegende) against the German Left with great skill. Especially after the stock market crash, when people were looking to place blame for their miseries.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/7/2006, 01:04 AM

A ha. The classic stab in the back theory.

The German Right Wing of the 1920s and early 1930s used such a theory (die Dolchstosslegende) against the German Left with great skill. Especially after the stock market crash, when people were looking to place blame for their miseries.So, in Germany in the '30's, the leftists were the capitalists, and the right wing were the socialists?!?! Whoda thunk?(Can't you dims ever admit that you're on the wrong side of logic?)

SicEmBaylor

8/7/2006, 03:01 AM

Am I a right-wing nut job?

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 05:16 AM

you know Homey, that sounds like a lot of Dim bashing...

Its not bashing if its true bro. Look, every Dem I've heard of on the national stage ('cept Joe Lieberman and they have just about decided to disown him) says we need to get out of Iraq ASAP. Further, I've heard no theory or plan advanced from the Dems on whats next after a pull-out. That's not partisan rhetoric or hyperbole. Its just the truth.

The 'Pubs and Bushies have mismanaged a great deal about this war. They have probably lost bajillions of dollars in theater due to graft and embezzlement by contractors and others. They also underestimated the resistance by the jihaadis.

The thing is, its just irresponsible and frankly more dangerous for us to leave Iraq in the near term (within the next several years) than to stay. That is one of the things Peters does a good job explaining in a rational way.

OCUDad

8/7/2006, 12:34 PM

Am I a nut job?Yes.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/7/2006, 01:18 PM

Am I a right-wing nut job?Hardly, as an enthusiast of Pat Buchanan, and a denouncer of Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and Tom DeLay.

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 01:37 PM

Look, every Dem I've heard of on the national stage ('cept Joe Lieberman and they have just about decided to disown him) says we need to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Hillary.

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 02:01 PM

Hillary.

Dood,
She was a co-sponsor of the flippin' Levin amendment.

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 02:03 PM

Dood,
She was a co-sponsor of the flippin' Levin amendment.

Hey Tuba, Jr. that doesn't have anything to do with troop withdrawl does it?

Hatfield

8/7/2006, 02:06 PM

cut and run is such a great political line.

when was the last time you heard bush say "when they stand up we will stand down"? been awhile because they aren't standing up.

nobody wants a policy of abandonment, but a policy of just staying over there is equally pointless if no plan is being advanced on where the line is that we withdraw. it is not okay for americans to die for a country that refuses to fight for itself.

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 02:13 PM

Hey Tuba, Jr. that doesn't have anything to do with troop withdrawl does it?

It does indeed. The Levin amendment tried to tie continued US combat operations on the ground in Iraq to the successful formation of an Iraqi democratic government. That implied a deadline and a threat of withdrawl if you ask me. That also highlights the fact that the bunch who cooked this up (including Hillary) doesn't get it. I don't care how long we continue playing on the road as long as the battle stays there, doesn't revert to a "home game" as it hasn't since 9-11 and we're still killing jihaadis.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of Congress that the Iraqi political, religious, and tribal leaders should be told by the Administration that--

(1) the continued presence of United States military forces in Iraq is not unconditional;

(2) whether the Iraqis avoid all-out civil war and have a future as a nation is in their hands;

(3) the Iraqis need to seize that opportunity and only they can be responsible for their own future; and

(4) completing the formation of a government of national unity and subsequent agreement to modifications to the Iraq Constitution to make it more inclusive, within the deadlines the Iraqis have set for themselves in the Iraq Constitution, is--

(A) essential to defeating the insurgency and avoiding all-out civil war; and

(B) a condition of the continued presence of United States military forces in Iraq.

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 02:26 PM

What about that resolution do you disagree with, exactly?

Ya gotta shove 'em out of the nest at some point and see if they'll fly on their own, no?

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 02:28 PM

What about that resolution do you disagree with, exactly?

Ya gotta shove 'em out of the nest at some point and see if they'll fly on their own, no?

I disagree with the notion that we tie leaving to the formation of a democratic government. Instead, I say we leave only when American interests are no longer imperiled in Iraq.

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 02:30 PM

I disagree with the notion that we tie leaving to the formation of a democratic government. Instead, I say we leave only when American interests are no longer imperiled in Iraq.

Noted.

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 02:51 PM

Noted.

Further, I think that amendment was a veiled attempt to set a trigger point for our leaving, regardless of whether it made good national security sense to remain. Particularly since I don't think anyone who really has studied the situation could expect a functioning democratic government able to defend itself from jihaadis to evolve in the near-term.

Can you imagine how long it would have taken to form a federal government in the US if we had people blowing people up all over our great cities in the years immediately following the British surrender at Yorktown?

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 03:00 PM

Do you honestly think their will EVAR be a point at which it makes sense to leave from a "good national security" point?

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 03:08 PM

Do you honestly think their will EVAR be a point at which it makes sense to leave from a "good national security" point?

I think it will probably take a generation. Its not going to be safe for us to get out of there anytime during the next ten years. Honestly.

JohnnyMack

8/7/2006, 03:11 PM

I think it will probably take a generation. Its not going to be safe for us to get out of there anytime during the next ten years. Honestly.

Oh goodie.

Ammunition for jihaadis to wage war on the great white occupiers.

This should be fun.

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 05:50 PM

Oh goodie.

Ammunition for jihaadis to wage war on the great white occupiers.

This should be fun.

If we left next Tuesday they would still want to burn our babies and drown our kittens for a generation at least. They are not going to play nice just because the Great Satan has redeployed its troops. I say stay engaged in Iraq where we kill them with .25 cent bullets instead of redeploying and having to kill them with megabuck bombs and missiles.

The only way we lose is if we disengage and bring the boys home when there are still jihaadis above ground.

That's all I want people to come to understand.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/7/2006, 06:57 PM

Okla-homey

8/7/2006, 09:34 PM

So, pack up this thread, and send a copy to all dims and rinos in DC... Naw, it'll bounce off their beans.

Precisely. The Dems are hitching their election hopes wagon to "we can extricate the US from this quagmire" and the Repubs are afraid to be candid with the electorate b/c they're scared shiiteless they are gonna lose the House this fall. The end result is everyone is being lied to from both sides of the aisle.

Its pathetic actually. I still have enough confidence in the vast middle of the electorate to accept the reality of the situation and buckle down for the long-haul IF someone would grow a pair, show a little character and leadership and shoot straight with the folks. Americans are not ones to shy away from tough fights if they understand the stakes.

Unfortunately, the White House simply doesn't have any credibility left to spend to make the point even if they were so inclined. The thing is, I actually think Lieberman has the moxie and credibility to do it, if the Dem party aparatchiks would just lay off him.

KaiserSooner

8/7/2006, 09:45 PM

So, in Germany in the '30's, the leftists were the capitalists, and the right wing were the socialists?!?! Whoda thunk?(Can't you dims ever admit that you're on the wrong side of logic?)

Heh.

1.) Brush up on your German history, slappy.

2.) I'm not a Democrat.

PDXsooner

8/7/2006, 09:57 PM

If the dims take a majority in the congress, .

we can only hope

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

8/8/2006, 12:56 AM

Heh.

1.) Brush up on your German history, slappy.

2.) I'm not a Democrat.Are you a Green?

OklahomaTuba

8/8/2006, 08:10 AM

we can only hope
Its always a good reminder to the rest of country about how bad they are at governing. 1992, they throw Bush 1 out and then two years later its a massive landslide for the GOP.

I think it will be very devastating for the future of the party if they get in there and let the leftwing extreamists (as if there is any other wing left) force them to go after impeaching Bush (still not sure what for yet) instead of fighting and winning the current war we are in.

Maybe they can repeal the patriot act while they are at it!

OklahomaTuba

8/8/2006, 08:10 AM

Are you a Green?

No, the greens are moderate compared to him. :D

JohnnyMack

8/8/2006, 09:08 AM

If we left next Tuesday they would still want to burn our babies and drown our kittens for a generation at least. They are not going to play nice just because the Great Satan has redeployed its troops. I say stay engaged in Iraq where we kill them with .25 cent bullets instead of redeploying and having to kill them with megabuck bombs and missiles.

The only way we lose is if we disengage and bring the boys home when there are still jihaadis above ground.

That's all I want people to come to understand.

I know it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback from here, but what if we had NEVER put forth a policy of nation building/colonization in the first place? What if we had taken the necessary steps to provide our own sources of energy and hadn't tried to buddy up with the brown man in the desert because he had oil? We've known for quite a while what kind of irrational, hate filled people we're dealing with yet we chose to do it anyway. This isn't a situation where I blame W, because I get what you're saying in regards to "let's fight it out in their backyard not ours if there's going to be a fight", I just shake my head at some of the decisions that got us to this point in the first place. I've said all along that 09/11 wasn't an unwarranted attack in these people's mind.

Okla-homey

8/8/2006, 09:23 AM

I know it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback from here, but what if we had NEVER put forth a policy of nation building/colonization in the first place? What if we had taken the necessary steps to provide our own sources of energy and hadn't tried to buddy up with the brown man in the desert because he had oil? We've known for quite a while what kind of irrational, hate filled people we're dealing with yet we chose to do it anyway. This isn't a situation where I blame W, because I get what you're saying in regards to "let's fight it out in their backyard not ours if there's going to be a fight", I just shake my head at some of the decisions that got us to this point in the first place. I've said all along that 09/11 wasn't an unwarranted attack in these people's mind.

I agree with your points. I also believe we had to suck up to the Arabs and remain engaged in the region because they have the oil our culture must have to survive. Maybe if we should be mad at anyone it should be the auto and truck makers who refuse to design engines which will get 50mpg and crank out 400hp. I refuse to believe the same nation that put a man on the moon in 1969 couldn't have accomplished that feat of engineering long ago -- and I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories. Perhaps a bit of federal legislation tied to the allocation of federal highway funds to the states which would make states stop allowing registration of anything that gets less than 30mpg on the highway by 2010 would do it.:O

I also think we need to build some flippin' refineries, develop a national standard for gasoline and quit with the stupid tailored blending for various locales based on whatever some state legislature thinks is the right blend for sale in within its borders. IOW, a national standard grade of gasoline. period.

Finally, I concede our defensive alliance with Israel is to blame for much of the Islamic hatred, venom and bombs we endure. I'm not for selling them out if for no other than the selfish reason that if Isreal were crushed, then they could focus exclusively on us. Right now, we are in this together and the jihaadis hate us both with the "white hot hatred of a thousand suns."