Should we still be in Iraq?

[WorldPeaceNow]

Sometimes it's hard to believe that it was five years ago when America first invaded Iraq. Yet George Bush's reign is soon coming to an end for either McCain or Obama to take over responsibility of the war that has cost billions and too many lost lives.

This thrilling one minute clip is very provocative.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwApfnvSmz4[/media]

[DeadlyDaring]

Originally Posted by WorldPeaceNow

Should we still be in Iraq?

In answer to your question ...NO!

My opinion....
Let the Religion of Peace sort it out and after they have nearly annihilate them selves as they been doing for centuries ...then we should move back in and clean up what is left

Our troops should of never been there the second time around your president back in the ninety's had his chance then but failed to finnish the mission ...so many wasted lives now! for what .. for OIL???

Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish

What would really happen over there if Iraq & Afghanistan never had the western support of lives and money ...nothing ...it would still be the same and yes the OIL WOULD BE CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!!

[darrels joy]

Safe From Truth

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Anti-Militarism: House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory.


Congress seems to be acting out the role of Col. Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson in the film "A Few Good Men." When pinned in covering up a murder, Nicholson famously yells back at Tom Cruise, playing the interrogating attorney: "You can't handle the truth!"

Democrats have decided this election year that American voters can't handle the fact that victory in Iraq is at hand.

In its passage last week of the defense policy bill, the House issued a prohibition against the Pentagon's "concerted effort to propagandize" the American public regarding the Iraq War.

It came in the form of an amendment authored by Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., which also would authorize an investigation of the Defense Department's "propaganda" efforts by the Government Accountability Office.

Hodes' addition to the bill passed by voice vote and the overall bill passed the House by a large margin. The Senate will wait until after the holiday recess to consider it.

It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters.

Besides, haven't congressional Democrats insisted all these years that it wasn't the military they had a problem with regarding the Iraq War?

Haven't they been saying how much they support those in uniform, that our military leaders really agreed with Democrats that Iraq was unwinnable, and that it was only the civilians who run war policy in the Bush administration they were attacking?

According to Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., the Hodes provision could end up classifying even the U.S. Marines' slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines," as a "concerted effort to propagandize" in violation of the law.

The Democrats' efforts to save America from good news in Iraq stem from a New York Times article last month charging that retired military officers appearing on TV were "puppets of the Defense Department" because they get frequent private briefings and talking points.

The paper called it "a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated."

How divided were the lines between government and journalism when the New York Times in 2005 refused the pleas of the White House not to endanger investigations that were in progress and alert terrorist plotters by exposing the National Security Agency's secret program to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of suspected terrorists?

Or when the Washington Post that same year imperiled national security by revealing the secret CIA interrogation program in which terrorist detainees were taken to foreign prisons where information that could prevent future attacks was extracted?

Democrats seem to be motivated largely by the notion that those who wear, or have worn, the uniform of the U.S. armed forces cannot be trusted. Witness Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, last week outrageously suggesting that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain looks at everything "from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

As will be obvious again on this Memorial Day, most Americans trust and appreciate our servicemen and women. Their wrath is sure to fall on those who pass laws that presume them to be liars.

[SuperScout]

Originally Posted by DeadlyDaring

In answer to your question ...NO!

My opinion....
Let the Religion of Peace sort it out and after they have nearly annihilate them selves as they been doing for centuries ...then we should move back in and clean up what is left

Using your logic, and that is questionable, there shouldn't be any Muslims in the area at all. Under your hypothesis, they would have killed themselves off years ago.

Our troops should of never been there the second time around your president back in the ninety's had his chance then but failed to finnish the mission ...so many wasted lives now! for what .. for OIL???

Obviously, you know nothing about what the mission of the forces involved in Gulf War I was; to enlighten you, it was to remove all invading (read 'Iraqi') forces from Kuwait, and restore the rightful government. We accomplished that, and then left.

Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish

Thank you for enlighenting us with your vast wisdom.

What would really happen over there if Iraq & Afghanistan never had the western support of lives and money ...nothing ...it would still be the same and yes the OIL WOULD BE CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!!

And millions of people would still be living under the rule of tyrants, being murdered simply for being in the wrong spot. And you can offer nothing more than your own hot air that oil would be cheaper.

[b3196]

Oh No Mr.Bill!!!!! another bOOb tuber

[Stick]

On Sept. 11, 2001 a Muslim, Osamah Bin Laden declared Jihad on the free Judeo-Christian world. Jihad is a Muslim word for "holy war" and the victor in Jihad is entitled to ALL of the victors spoils. If America or the free world resigns itself to letting the Bin Ladens of the world have their own way then we give the Bin Ladens of the world everything that we have worked and bleed for. Mohammed the founder of Islam taught that if a Muslim should give his life to and for Allah he would spend eternity in paradise and while here the surviving male should have total rule over subjective infidels and women.
America did NOT declare war on Bin Laden who at the time was the ruler in Afghanistan who had the ear of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
From the New York Post, December 31, 2002 written by Daniel Pipes,
"What is Jihad?
What does the Arabic word Jihad mean?
One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his Jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with Jihad.
As this suggests, Jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.
The purpose of Jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of Jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of Jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of Jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.
Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, Jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.
Today, Jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed Jihadist groups:
The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization; Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia; Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all; Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries just this month.
But Jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, Jihadist there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.
Jihadist then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.
Sudan's state-sponsored Jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.
Despite Jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining Jihad as: An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
"Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary) and, "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner, above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).
It would be wonderful were Jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign Jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.
The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging Jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to Jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent Jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent Jihad.
Unfortunately, such a process of redemption is not now under way; violent Jihad will probably continue until it is crushed by a superior military force. Only when Jihad is defeated will moderate Muslims finally find their voice and truly begin the hard work of modernizing Islam."

Oil? Hmmm!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeh, I heard this week that it's only the law of the market that has driven oil prices up so high. You know, the rule of "Supply and demand." Mohammed says "I have the supply Infidel, and my demand is that if want oil then surrender your lifes earnings to me. I win everything. You loose everything. That's Jihad.

[Robert Ryan]

Sorry folks I am against war, however, the men and women fighting this war have my total support in their efforts, and I will back them up any way I can. If the idiot politcans would get their noses out of the business of waging war and let the military leaders who are schooled in the art of waging war run it maybe this fisaco would be over a lot sooner than the politicans want it. I am not against war because of polictical reasons nor any liberal views, I like a lot of us here on this forum have seen it and know the price paid because of it.

[DeadlyDaring]

Using your logic, and that is questionable, there should not be any Muslims in the area at all.
I did not say that, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it just as I am
You do not force another county to abide by your way of life… it just does NOT work!


Under your hypothesis, they would have killed themselves off years ago.
In addition, what is wrong with that, they are killing our boys anyway


Obviously, you know nothing about what the mission of the forces involved in Gulf War I was.
What do you think, I didn’t know this …one of my brothers were involved in the first one


To enlighten you, it was to remove all invading (read 'Iraqi') forces from Kuwait, and restore the rightful government.
Oh, you mean the chicken forces in large numbers that invaded a barn only to run away when a large fox turned up


We accomplished that, and then left.
You accomplished nothing …you just made matters worse by NOT FINNISHING the mission at hand …and now you are paying for it in lives and trillions of dollars


Thank you for enlightening us with your vast wisdom.
Oh! thats alright
On the other hand, with your advance modern technology, you still cannot find the perpetrator and yet you supposed to have found “weapons of mass destruction” …What just to wage war for an excuse on Saddam


And millions of people would still be living under the rule of tyrants, being murdered simply for being in the wrong spot.
O/K then Mr know all …Why don’t you invade Zimbabwe, Burma, China, North Korea, Iran etc etc
Different country’s but the Tyranny is still the same


And you can offer nothing more than your own hot air that oil would be cheaper.
Try dogs breath and yes yes yes

And Robert Ryan I totally agree with you

[WorldPeaceNow]

And millions of people would still be living under the rule of tyrants, being murdered simply for being in the wrong spot.
O/K then Mr know all …Why don’t you invade Zimbabwe, Burma, China, North Korea, Iran etc etc
Different country’s but the Tyranny is still the same

I think thats a good point, but at the same time we should really make some real efforts to liberate millions of people from living under the rule of tyrants. It is clear that non-violent efforts take significantly longer time than violent efforts. North Korea recently opened up a little bit by allowing an american orchestra and international journalists to view its nuclear program. Do you feel no remorse for people that suffer daily?

[SEATJERKER]

...

...and what are you personaly doing to help?,...

...You look like you are on LSD saving that fern, Vern,...

...