Global Fires
 All Forums
 All FireSociety

Full Search Here
RSS Feed Subscribe to Topics

Democrats' Dilemma in Iraq

Forums Home | Global Fires | Iraq/War on Terror
Posts 1-20 of 26 | Latest Post

First 1 2 Last
June 28, 2008 06:53 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007
Their Dilemma is huge, all Islamic States must be part of the equation with Saudi Arabia one of the biggest unknowns. Consideration must be given to the invasion of Wahhabi Islamic Muslims into Europe, England and America sponsored by the Wahhabi Saudi Regime. The idea the Obama will consider any of this and continue the Bush Doctrine, seems very doubtful considering his Wahhabi Islamic Connections, and his early youth as a Wahhabi Muslim as are his brothers today.
It should come as no surprise if Obama does indeed Surrender as promised, deserting our allies in that part of the world, primarily the Israelis and the Iraqis, giving the region to the Victor, probably Iran in the Wahhabi Islamic battle that will follow.
America and our allies in Europe and England must be prepared for war in the mid east, primarily against Israel. In addition we must be prepared for a multitude of Islamic Terrorist Attacks on all infidel nations in support of this Declared Terrorist War by Islam that has been so blithely ignored by Obama and the SPCD* in congress and to some extent the bush Administration today. I doubt that there are many Americans that even realize that War has been declared against us and Europe.
How do we "Wake UP" our nation to this danger?? This question can result in many sleepless nights.
  

Democrats' Dilemma in Iraq

By William Rusher
Washington Times | 6/27/2008

The Democrats now find themselves in a thoroughly uncomfortable dilemma over Iraq.

Back in the early days of the American invasion, when things were going relatively badly, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the war was "lost" and America's only recourse was to pull out. (This, of course, would have been an absolute political disaster for the Bush administration, as Mr. Reid no doubt knew and hoped.) In the subsequent months and years, when things there have gone substantially better, Mr. Reid has never retracted his highly premature conclusion but it is safe to say it is now "inoperative."

According to such sources as the New York Times, which can hardly be described as having been a cheerleader for the attack, the al Qaeda forces in Iraq are now thoroughly on the defensive, and Nourish al-Malice's government is strengthening its grip on the country. It seems likely that George I. Bush will achieve his goal of stepping down as president with the Iraq problem well on its way to a solution.

That leaves the Democrats in a bit of a pickle. What, exactly, is their current policy on Iraq? It would be out of the question to insist, in the teeth of the good news from Iraq, that the United States should adopt the former Democratic policy and simply bug out. And, in purely political terms, it would be equally difficult for the Democrats to admit they were wrong, reverse their position and endorse the administration policy.

Is there some middle road they could safely take? It's hard to envision what it might be. Either the United States must insist on prevailing, as it is currently doing, or substantially abandon the region altogether. And it's hard to imagine any more disastrous policy than the latter. The Middle East has for decades been both one of the most critical areas on Earth, thanks to its indispensable reserves of oil, and also one of the most volatile, by virtue of its ethnic and religious quarrels. To abandon it would verge on economic suicide.

It is not surprising, then, that at the moment there is no settled Democratic policy on Iraq. If the Democrats win in November, the cooler heads in the party will presumably prevail and endorse a policy not all that different from that of President Bush - I.e., sustaining the current regimes in Iraq and elsewhere in the region that support U.S. policy. But between now and Election Day the Democrats need a Middle East policy different from Mr. Bush's yet not obviously suicidal - and they just don't have one.

For the moment, the Democratic answer is silence. And it's hard not to feel it is probably their best bet. After all, Election Day is just four-and-a-half months away, and there are plenty of other issues the Democrats can seize on to emphasize their sharp differences with the Republicans.

But the American people are hardly unaware of the importance of the Middle East, and of America's stake in that area. And they will credit President Bush with the wisdom to recognize these and devise policies that take them into account. Painful as American losses - any losses - in the Middle East may be, they pale in comparison to those our country would suffer if it lost the capacity to influence events there.

We must never forget that there are individual despots, and whole nations, in the Middle East who despise the United States and would gladly drive it out of the region, and deprive us of its oil reserves, if only they could. Keeping that from happening must be a cardinal aim of U.S. foreign policy and ought to be a matter of bipartisan agreement. That is why, despite the understandable distaste partisan Democrats would feel at having to endorse a Republican policy, the happiest result for the United States, and the soundest long-run course for the Democratic Party, would be a Democratic decision to endorse President Bush's policy in Iraq.



Maxstake
June 29, 2008 06:42 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
June 18, 2008

obama...PLEASE DO NOT LOSE A WAR WHICH OUR FIGHTING MEN HAVE WON!!!

 

would that be a great bumber sticker or placard or what??

 

obama is smart enough to ":stay the course in iraq" if elected...if for nothing else than to be able to claim it was he that brought victory as a reason to be reelected..
June 29, 2008 08:04 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007
Comment updated June 29, 2008 08:11 AM

Suppose that we had some natural resource that the Middleastern Countries needed. Would it be exceptable for them to invade us to protect their supply of the resource.

Does might make right, if one believes it does than we are getting weaker as a nation, and we might have to eat those words.

The Middleastern Countries are not our property, they are sovereign nations, and unless one believes we should become an Empire instead of a Republic, we have no right to intervene in their affairs, unless we are attacked. Without Congress declairing war, like the constitution outlines we should not be there.

Our military is in Iraq solely to further the ideology of globalism. Globalist must get a foothold in the middleast in order to bring them into the fold.  They are using our military to accomplish the ideology of globaism.

The economies of China, India, Indonesia, Japan and most of the third world we developed by the American Middleclass wealth. If one approves of that, then we should not complain about those countries wanting to eat better, buy cars, all driving the cost of resources.

Lou Dobbs reported a poll ask to college students, Asking if International Law should trump our constitutional law. If I can remember right something like 90% believed that International Law should trump our own laws. I said that to illustrate the thorough job, globalist has done to promote globalism in America.

If one embraces the concept of globalism, than Mr. Bush is their man. Obama, and McCain will follow in his footsteps. Some domestic policy might change, but foreign policy will continue toward globalism, and ultimately produce Global Government.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5wfNnV6vTU&feature=rec-fresh

 
June 29, 2008 03:44 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007

algebra,

I offer the following for your better understanding of Middleastern Countries.

Too many People have not figured it out, Islam has declared War on all Infidel Nations.
Islam has been at war with America, England and Europe for several years, declared by their surrogates al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Broherhood, etc, while states like Iran and Syria openly threaten to destroy Israel and America. They are not just "poor nations" wanting to better themselves, they want to destroy us and impose Islam on us. They believe we are weak and haven't got the "Guts" to stop them, Osama Ben laden has said so. Anyone that doubts this has not done the research or is not paying attention.
The attacks on America and the West include the Attack on the Cole-we did nothing; Mogadishu-we cut and ran; the Barracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia-again we cut and ran, 9/11 we finally responded in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Train Attack in Spain, and the Subway/bus Attack in London. These are not actions of "Poor Nations" wanting to better themselves these are ACTS OF WAR.
One thing of note is the tired and worn statement by many that there are Moderate Wahhabi Islamic Muslims. No where on earth is there a Moderate Wahhabi Islamic Muslim or Persian. The Wahhabi are the most radical of all the Islamic sects, all Saudi's are Wahhabi. The Wahhabi Islamic Hordes have invaded America, England and Europe directed by the Royal Saudi Family and its King. In America alone there are some 6-8 Million Wahhabi Islamic Muslims, with 2,000 Wahhabi Mosques and associated Imams to control this population. Their purpose is to take over and destroy us from within like their ally the Secular Progressives that now control the Democrat Party. Together with organizations like the Wahhabi CAIR and the Communist ACLU they use American Law to achieve their goals. In England they have used English Law to establish Wahhabi Muslim Ghettos where non-Muslims are not allowed. This isn't the act of a people that want to integrate. Such actions have been tried in the State of Washington and others and have failed so far.
Use any search engine like "goggle" using the terms Muslims in America, Mosques in America or variations, in addition check out "frontpagemag.com" and learn.
We are in Iraq and Afghanistan today, because Islam has declared war on America and all infidel nations no more and not less.
Finally I am curious, are you a Republican of a Secular Progressive Democrat?
I am intrigued at the old Marxist use of globalism, globalists and global government. To call Bush, McCain and others Globalists while interesting is far from the truth. It doesn’t surprise me that possibly 90% of college students believe that International Law should trump our own laws. Since most colleges and universities are controlled today by Secular Progressive Communist Professors and Instructors selling Globalism, its not a surprise.
Finally in addition to "Frontpagemag.com" you should read "Londinistan" by Melanie Phillips it will give you a better handle on what is happening in the Islamic World and the war they have declared.  


Maxstake
June 29, 2008 04:50 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007
Comment updated June 29, 2008 05:46 PM

Maxstake, Before we get into a long discussan on Islam, could you tell me why 15 Saudis, 2 United Arab Emorites, 1 Egyptan, and 1 Lebonese, attacking the world trade center,translates in invading Iraq. Considering Hussein's Government was a secular government and was not friendly to any of the terrorist groups you mentioned. They weren't in Iraq untill we went there, Hussein kept those groups out of his country, with an iron fist.

My political ideology is Christian Conservative, I trust from your post that yours is Neoconservative. Am I wrong? If Islam is such a threat to us than why are we still immigrating 6,000 a month from Middleastern Countries, and why is our borders still wide open, when Mr. Bush's Administration has had eight years to secure them?
June 29, 2008 06:42 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007

algebra,

Why would you assume "neoconservative"???? I've been a Conservative all my life and have voted Republican for 56 of those years. If you want to bring religion into the conversation, I am a Christian.

The invasion of Wahhabi Islamic Muslims, directed  by the Saudi's and their King began about 35 years ago, which must have been under Carter. Since then anyone could get a visa in Saudi Arabia with little or no background checking, if they were or clamed to be Saudi.  The stupidity of this is obvious if you take the time to check it out and what they have been about from the beginning of this invasion. I don't care which president is to blame, all of them that have ignored the horde of people that walk in illegally or come in legally.

 The attack on 9/11 didn't have a damn thing to do with our going into Iraq, what's new.  Everyone should remember the invasion of Iraq was precipitated because of Iraq's disregard of the United Nations Mandates, unless you choose to believe the lies from the SPCD* leaders like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Hillary, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, etc, etc.  As for Sadam keeping terrorists out of his country, you must have missed the training camps in the north eastern area, that he was in contact with representatives of Osama and allowed some leaders to recover from wounds in Iraqi Hospitals.

*(SPCD=Secular Progressive Communist Democrats)



Maxstake
June 29, 2008 07:58 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007

I suppose I concluded you were a Neocon the same way you concluded I am spreading Marxist Ideology. I personally have never heard of Marxist using the words globalism, or Global Government. Frankly I have never heard a Marxist speak publicly, so I really cannot associate the things I believe to any politican ideology. Actually I was a dedicated republican, but the last republican I voted for was Reagan. Since then I have voted third party.

I really cannot buy into the threat from Islam, simply because if we were, securing our borders would be our first line of defense. Until that is done, I believe Islam is only the fear tactics used to further the global plutocracy's need to get a foothold in the middleast.

I believe any nation with nationalist policies will be over run by our military. Especially those with resources the world needs. The rest will be pressured into conforming to globalism by simply being starved into submission.

I don't see how anyone can not see we are racing toward globalism. A world without national borders, the free flow of capital, goods and services, and labor is not only free trade tenents, but also globalist dreams of a world without nation states. A multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic society, they will be governing.

I realize the Democrats you mentioned are social liberals, but when it comes to foreign policy they are exactly the same as most republicans.

 There is a class of Americans who are totally dependent on government, but those number will, and has, grown dramatically since our manufacturing has been outsourced. That was done by republicans and democrats not democrats alone, and Mr. Bush led the way.

I will vote for Chuck Baldwin in the upcoming election, mainly because of the Constutional Partys Platform ,on Trade and Teriffs, and Civil Liberties.

 
June 30, 2008 08:24 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007
A couple of other good Marxists sayings are "World Order" and "World Government".
I recommend that you take the time to check out the "Islamic Threat" to America, on "mideastmonitor.org", "prophetofdoom.net", "jhadwatch.org", "citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com" and of course "frontpagemag.com". In addition as I wrote before just use "Goggle" and check out "Wahhabi in America", or "Mosques in America", or "CAIR" etc, etc and learn about this invasion, short of you educating yourself to this threat we may not have much to talk about.
It is everyone's right to vote as they wish, but I find 'Protest Votes" to be a waste of time and energy. While I don't particularly like Senator McCain on many things, still it is my belief that he at least will not surrender in Iraq, that would plunge us into a World War. Since its either him or the Secular Progressive Communist Democrat Obama, McCain gets my vote.


Maxstake
June 30, 2008 08:33 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007

Thanks Maxstake, I will visit your recomended sites, will you watch this video. Perhaps you also could stand some education. This is the first part of eight videos.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk
June 30, 2008 04:31 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007
algebra, I called up that video and about half way throught the first, it stoped and was advised that it was cancelled??

Maxstake
June 30, 2008 05:37 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 15, 2007

Something to think about??? 

 

Lest you think Bush has no
> friends in the Middle East
> besides Israel, here are
> some of his best buddies...
>
> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/355.html
>
> - Brasscheck

 

 

The war in Iraq goes on and on.
>
> If Obama plans to stop it, he's being
> awfully vague about his plans.
>
> McCain? Well, he's already told us what
> to expect.
>
> Who's driving this war? Why is the US
> prosecuting a war that makes no sense
> morally, militarily, economically and
> diplomatically?
>
> It's an open secret:
>
> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/352.html
>
> - Brasscheck
>

 

 
Iranians Float an Offer the West Should Not Refuse
Will Anti-War Forces Seize this Opportunity?

By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach


Global Research, June 29, 2008

If there were any substance to Condi Rice's repeated assertions, that the strife over Iran's nuclear program could, and preferably should, be solved through diplomatic means, then one would expect the U.S. Secretary of State to seize on recent offers made by Iranian figures, designed to facilitate the start of talks. Although widely ignored in the international press, highly significant statements were made at an international conference in Berlin June 24-25, by two authoritative Iranian spokesmen, one an academic, the other a political leader and brother of the new Majlis (Parliament) speaker Ali Larijani. Both said explicitly that Tehran would be willing to freeze its uranium enrichment, and to provide for concrete mechanisms to guarantee that its enrichment program would not, and could not, be geared to weapons production.

June 30, 2008 06:28 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007
The problem is not if Bush has any friends in the Middle East besides Israel, Its does America??? The honest answer is NO. The Saudi's and all other Islamic Nations support the world wide Islamic Wahhabi Invasion of all infedel Countries to include Wahhabi Mosques and they  supports financialy all Terrorist Oganizations. Just check out all the moneys collected thru the Mosques and the Wahhabi organization CAIR in America and given to organizations like the Mulsim Brotherhood among others.

Maxstake
June 30, 2008 06:36 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007

Maxstake, will you please try the video on google. I don't know what could have happened. This will be a Google link to the same video, I would really like to hear your take on Mr. Williams report.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
June 30, 2008 07:07 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007

I agree Maxstake, we do not have friends in the Middleast. That poses a question: why did we intervene when Iraq invaded Kawait. Why are we intervening in the affairs of every country that has a problem. From Kosovo to Haiti we have sent American Servicemen to sacrafice their lives for what reason? I believe its about globalism.

Saudia Arabia is the largest oil reserve we know of, Iraq is the second largest, and Iran is the third largest. Isn't it strange we have good relations with the Saudies, Iraq is being taken out, and Iran is next on the list.

 
July 1, 2008 04:06 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 3, 2007
algebra said:

Suppose that we had some natural resource that the Middleastern Countries needed. Would it be exceptable for them to invade us to protect their supply of the resource.

Does might make right, if one believes it does than we are getting weaker as a nation, and we might have to eat those words.

The Middleastern Countries are not our property, they are sovereign nations, and unless one believes we should become an Empire instead of a Republic, we have no right to intervene in their affairs, unless we are attacked. Without Congress declairing war, like the constitution outlines we should not be there.

Our military is in Iraq solely to further the ideology of globalism. Globalist must get a foothold in the middleast in order to bring them into the fold.  They are using our military to accomplish the ideology of globaism.

The economies of China, India, Indonesia, Japan and most of the third world we developed by the American Middleclass wealth. If one approves of that, then we should not complain about those countries wanting to eat better, buy cars, all driving the cost of resources.

Lou Dobbs reported a poll ask to college students, Asking if International Law should trump our constitutional law. If I can remember right something like 90% believed that International Law should trump our own laws. I said that to illustrate the thorough job, globalist has done to promote globalism in America.

If one embraces the concept of globalism, than Mr. Bush is their man. Obama, and McCain will follow in his footsteps. Some domestic policy might change, but foreign policy will continue toward globalism, and ultimately produce Global Government.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5wfNnV6vTU&feature=rec-fresh

 

We do have resources the world wants...BUT DEMOCRATS WILL NOT ALLOW US TO DRILL IN OUR OWN COUNTRY!Yell

Hello? Have you even been paying attention?!

It is totally irresponsible to say the war is about oil......Saddam is dead and so are his sons...GOOD! To our military: Kill as MANY OF THESE TERRORISTS as you possibly can....Democrats would try to "reason" with them...

Obama is an ignorant idiot.....and his wife is a racist witch



"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." Ronald Reagan "Evil is powerless when the good are unafraid." Ronald Reagan
July 1, 2008 04:29 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
September 27, 2007
My problem with the war is we are pussy footing around. I agree We need to be doing a lot more killing and have less concern and understanding. Can you imagine what would have happen if we had fought the Germans this way? By now there should be a McDonalds and a Baptist church downtown Baghdad

To change the direction of this country, you must change the people who you have entrusted. Do not stand by and let others tell you what is good for your country. Vote these carpet baggers out of office.
July 1, 2008 04:38 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 3, 2007
Bassin Boggs said: My problem with the war is we are pussy footing around. I agree We need to be doing a lot more killing and have less concern and understanding. Can you imagine what would have happen if we had fought the Germans this way? By now there should be a McDonalds and a Baptist church downtown Baghdad

 

Heaven Forbid! Maybe "Pitas R US" or "hummus heaven".....

We are NOT pussy footing around....we have been kicking some major tail over there.....

It's what you DON't hear about that has been such a success....the media will NEVER give our soldiers credit for the remarkable job they have done not only with actual battle against "unconventional" terrorists who fight dirty....but also their interaction with the people which is so important. Ignorance is rampant over there.....our soldiers are trying to help "counter" that ignorance....

Democrats like John Murtha, Kerry, OBAMA and the Clintons should be HUNG FOR ACTS OF TREASON against our soldiers....oh and don't forget Reid and Pelosi.....

Treasonous democrats.....now we have treasonous 3rd party backers who will HELP OBAMA WIN......virtually guaranteeing that ALL OF THE WORK by our soldiers will be destroyed.......

There needs to be a "cure" for liberalism...the only thing I can think of is a mass dose of kool aid just like Jim Jones served in Jonestown......

 



"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." Ronald Reagan "Evil is powerless when the good are unafraid." Ronald Reagan
July 2, 2008 09:26 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007
Bassin Boggs said: My problem with the war is we are pussy footing around. I agree We need to be doing a lot more killing and have less concern and understanding. Can you imagine what would have happen if we had fought the Germans this way? By now there should be a McDonalds and a Baptist church downtown Baghdad

Globalist are simular to the Soviets in the cold war. They take a step and if no one says anything they take another step, but if someone does object they take half a step backwards.

The wars we have been involved, from Kosovo to Haiti has been to further globalism, not to defend America. Congress has not declaired war since WW11. Thats why we do not have out and out war anymore.

Have you researched the Constitutional Partys Platform, if you haven't, it's very inspirational to find a party that believes in America first.
July 2, 2008 10:03 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
September 27, 2007
Lets go down the list: Ninety % of the hi-jackers came from Saudi Arabia We were told of weapons of mass destruction, Lets go down the list: Ninety % of the hi-jackers came from Saudi Arabia We were told of weapons of mass destruction, We never declared war. We toppled a sovereign government. We are trying to settle a religious war We are building forty eight military bases in Iraq Why have we had so many different commanders that will not fight under Bush's plan and have resigned. The oil. What you don't understand is the duty of a foot soldier is to take ground and to destroy their enemy. It's not to occupy it's not to rebuild .You do that after the leaders of that country sign a unconditional surrender. Our mistake in Iraq is that we thought that the people would see us as liberators the truth is we are seen as infidels. I love this country as much as the rest, our troops are to be praised for their service. But facts are facts, this is just the systematic take over of a country.

To change the direction of this country, you must change the people who you have entrusted. Do not stand by and let others tell you what is good for your country. Vote these carpet baggers out of office.
July 2, 2008 10:16 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
October 4, 2007
You know, it would be great if everyone would pay more attention to this sections subject "Democrats' Dilemma in Iraq" and stop the continous bashing of Bush. We have heared it all over and over and over, the "Secular Progressive Communist Democrats" have done a good job, even some conservitives believe their propaganda. Can we get back to the subject?????

Maxstake

First 1 2 Last

You must login to discuss this item.


  Sponsored Links