       |
 |
  |
Posted on 02/05/2007 10:09:29 AM PST by drzz
In the beginning of this week, Hillary Clinton promised to her supporters that she would end the war in Iraq if she's elected.
Beside the fact Hillary is going to the far left - good news for every conservative - the question remains : do the US have any interests in leaving Iraq now ?
The Somalia retreat in 1993 let islamists in power in the region, then tribal chiefs, then again Al-Quaeda and finnally the US had to get back in 2006 in order to destroy the new heaven of terrorism in Eastern Africa.
An islamic Somalia would have strengthened the islamic forces in the rest of Africa (Sudan, Morocco, Algeria) and offerred several millions people to the global islamic jihad.
We are facing the same situation now. We are near a global clash of civilization. Bin Laden is trying to weaken the US in the Middle East in order to strenghten the radical islamists in Lebanon, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabiam, in Palestine and Pakistan.
A retreat of Iraq would not only get the US troops out of Iraq but will hurry up their COME BACK, or the victory in the WoT will be gravely at stake with millions of muslims unable to stand up against the jihadists. Like the White House said : there is no victory in the War on Terror without a victory in Iraq.
It is like if Roosevelt had lauched a preemptive war against the Nazis to Praha's rescue in 1938, and the US Senate would have been against. Then, Roosevelt would have faced two choices : a) retreat, but to be sure to come back later and face more casualties. b) to stand in his boots on, to ignore an increasingly unhappy population, but later to be confident of having saved thousands of American lives.
Finnally, the stupid Hillary Clinton and Dems not only advocate a defeat in Iraq and nnounce new attacks on the US soil.
Unvoluntarily they prepare the country for new US counter-attacks in the Middle East with more and more troops, and more and more blood in a global clash of civilization.
By advocating the end of the war in Iraq, they are leading the country to plenty others.
The reconquest of Iraq for example.
"BAD IDEAS ALWAYS LEAD TO BLOOD. BUT THAT'S THE OTHER'S BLOOD. THAT IS WHY OUR THINKERS ARE SO COOL TO SAY THE MOST STUPID THINGS". Albert Camus
Getting these concepts accross to Joe and Jane Swingvote is proving difficult.
n a global clash of civilization?
I think that should be reframed to civilization 7th century barbarians.
Where they live, where they move into, their "philosphies" keep their people trapped in the 7th century cult practices. This entrapment produces third world conditions. They do not have the capacity to generate the social goods. France? Germany? Feeble Britain? All will suffer deterioration as the cult dilutes western progress.
The exceptions to this are trust beneficiaries of Henry Ford and his invention... the gas guzzling automobile. Take away their revenue and they will regress to illiterate sandpeople. Bloodthirsty , jealous, impoverished and illiterate.
The cult? Truly a barnacle riding on progresses hull.
IMO
sorry,
second sentance should read
I think it should be reframed as civilization VS 7th century barbarians
Hilary Wants All US Troops Out of Iraq Before She Assumes the Presidency in 2009
Speaking at a gathering in Iowa, site of the first test for 2008 presidential hopefuls, U.S. presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said that President Bush must withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, saying it would be “the height of irresponsibility to pass the war along to me.”
“I’ve had enough of cleaning up after one president,” Clinton said. “I don’t want to have to clean up after another.”
Pressed for details, Clinton angrily suggested that Bush “should put the troops back where he found them. He knows very well where they belong. When you take something out you have to put it away when you’re done with it. I went through these battles with Bill. I don’t think I should have to go through them with George Bush.”
The White House criticized Senator Clinton’s remarks as “out of line.” “Hilary’s not my mama,” Bush said. “I’ll put the troops back when I’m finished. It might be before I leave office. It might not. The commanders in the field will tell me when. I’m not going to be bossed around by Senator Clinton. I’m the decider, not her.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
The example of Somalia is pretty good.
The example of... Iraq too. If you let the job undone, you will have to come back and do it.
Horowitz leads the charge : http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf
War doesn't offer a place for the no 2. You win or you lose. And losing against islamic jihadists who so much death means being destroyed.
If by "cult" you mean Socialism then you are spot on.
Right.
Do you remember how barbarians finished their foes when they won in the 7th century ?
They killed them all. For radical muslims, their lives, and yours, is peanuts.
Europe's strength has come primarily from the United States shouldering the burden of their common defense for over 60 years.
Jean Francois Carry notwithstanding, there is a trend toward isolationism in the US. The current isolationist trend is founded in the "cut & run" from Iraq brigades.
The looming isolationist trend will rear its head in 2009, should a Democrat President take office. The tendency for Democrats is to involve our military forces in humanitarian missions, such as Africa, or in missions not tied to our national security interests, such as Bosnia.
As we speak, Democrats are painting themselves into a corner on the use of military force. They will not be able to make a case for such deployments for at least 10 years after we have left Iraq, assuming that our drawdown will commence within 18 months. Based on their oft-stated goals to "redeploy" from Iraq, Democrats should fully describe their definition of a "vital national security interest."
The rest of the world, particularly Europe, will rue the day they did not join with us in Iraq, and other battles in the War on Terror. Our younger generations have no recollection of the Cold War, and are not nearly as likely to come to the aid of Europe, Taiwan, or the rest of our allies. Let's face it: the money will not be there, as Social Security will collapse under the weight of retiring Baby Boomers.
One part of me loathes the thought of the US becoming isolationist, while another part relishes the thought of sending a big "FU" to those countries that have fought us diplomatically in the UN, and the War on Terror.
|
|
|
|
|
good point,
we can always go and ask the ever successful mugabe for his opinion
the sheeple are unable to think longterm..they will want out of Iraq regardless of the consequences long term
Voters never believe in cause and effect...if A happens, then B will happen..they think A and B are independent events...to understand otherwise requires too much effort intellectually
thats why I think a very prudent move would be to take away Irans new "oil money" toys.
and be harsh about it so they and the syrians would take some responsibilty for their onslaught against the west.
perhaps stone age em.
then let their sleeper cells go home to do something useful ~ like rebuild whats left of their contries.
I'm European, but I tell you : Europeans don't deserve a second chance. Hundreds of thousands US soldiers went to their rescue in 41-45, but Europeans used this help to build utopian socialist societies, without any base of defense or morale. This continent is lost.
What I'm telling you is that going in the Middle East is in your interest.
The REAL Vietnam era was 1992-2001, when the US were stroke and didn't answer. They were so weak and so unaware of what was going on over there that they let Saddam and Al-Quaeda strengthen.
Now the US have to stand firm and brave in the Middle East, especially in order to prevent a massive global clash of civilizations. Someday we all dream of a massive bomb destroying Teheran and finish the problem radically. But this strategy will cost the lives of millions, and lead the world to a greater disaster than WWII.
Bush's strategy is to use the defaults of the Middle East jihadists against them. People of the Middle East are oppressed ? Let advocate a policy to free them. They are frustrated and want to join global jihadism ? Let open their societies. They are uneducated ? Let advocate freedom of speech and education.
This strategy seems to be naive for "realists" like Bush 41 and Baker & Co. Thus, all realists have done a terrible job in the Middle East, and the "isolationnist" policy of Bush senior-Clinon lead to this : Arafat gets his terrorist state, Saddam was spared and continued to run his country, Saudi Arabia continued to send anti-american propaganda, Iran's islamic theocracy was saved, the US military forces were stroke several times without any real answer, and finnally, the war Clinton didn't want to lauch in Iraq and Afghanistan was lauched BY terrorists in the US.
Realism and isolationnism failed. They always fail. The Cold War was not won by isolationnism, rather by agressive economic and military measures taken by Reagan. Bush leads the charge today in a different war : an ideological one, against the oldest and most spread totalitarism of the history of mankind. Not much WMDS, in comparison of communists, but a lot of people ready to blow up (Dr. Pipes estimated the global jihad fighters as around 200 millions people, their ideological supporters are about one billion).
The fight in the heart of islam and not the fight against islam. What do you chose ? Bush strategy chose the first solution, and is promoting freedom in the Middle East.
I think Bush is right. To promote the good against evil is always an advantage in a ideological war.
Of course, when our own pols will not use the term Islamofascism as our enemy, will not criticize American Muslims who will not condemn terrorists, will not go on the offensive against Iran and Syria, have been swayed by pacifist socialists throughout the USA, one cannot expect Congress or even the Prez to finally declare war against these pagans.
Will Americans elect Hillary our next Commander In Chief? That possibility should scare the living daylights out of any thinking American........We should begin referring to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton - Commander In Chief.
Hitlery never stops
She was the President's wife, not the VP. There was nothing to 'clean up'.
A Clinton in the White House leads to disaster.
See 9/11.
Clinton = Kennedy.
Weak US in a time of war would be awful. A journey in the Dark Ages.
From where I sit, all the outcomes appear absolutely awful. Can anyone point me to an argument for the idea that "it won't turn out so bad if we leave early?"
Very nice post devolve, you are lighting up the threads today!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.