But for the war in Iraq, we would face, now, or soon, a Jihadist crescent of state-sponsors of Islamic Nazism armed with nuclear weapons, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and maybe Saudi Arabia. Because of President Bush's "mistake," we do not, and will not. Unless a Democratic majority in Congress next year decides to make a pre-emptive surrender to Al Qaeda, to abdicate the Middle East to Islamic Nazism, to end this war, for now, which will mean we will have to fight it again, another day, in the Middle East or somewhere else, after the state sponsors of terrorism have nuclear weapons.


But for the war in Iraq, it is probable that the Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Ahmidinejad, et al., would soon, or by now, control the oil production of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and by political alliance the oil of Venezuela. OPEC would be a tool of the jihad. And they would be pleased to use the oil of OPEC to blackmail, loot, and intimidate Europe and America. Yes, this war is about oil. It is about preventing the Jihad from using the price and supply of oil as a weapon against the rest of the world, and that includes your job, your paycheck, your retirement fund, your future.


But for the war in Iraq, they would be, now or soon, within missile range of most or all of Western Europe, and that, coupled with control of OPEC, would leave the U.S. and Europe with only three options:

(1) cooperate with the Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, whatever "cooperation" turned out to mean, which could conceivably mean the repudiation of our Constitution and the adoption of Sharia as the supreme law of America,

(2) accept the destruction of the global economy if the Jihad decided to shut down the spigots or double the price, or

(3) go to war in the Middle East to seize control of the OPEC oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Iran and break up the OPEC cartel, in the face of the Islamic Bomb.


All of these options are vastly worse than the war we have now in Iraq.

The fact that we do not confront these three options today is due largely, or entirely, to the fact that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and the rest of the awful war-mongering "neo-cons" made the "mistake" of going to war in Iraq, choosing the time and place of battle, rather than letting the time and place of battle be chosen by our enemy, choosing to go to war before the jihad had its fingers on the nuclear trigger, rather than after. It was not a mistake. Faced with the options, none of which are good, the president chose the one that is least bad, the one that gives Western Civilization, a civilized Europe, a civilized Middle East, and a free America, the best possible chance of survival.

The war has not run perfectly, according to plan. But no war ever has, no war ever will, and no war ever can. Whatever mistakes we may or may not have made, they are insignificant, trivial, and immaterial, when compared to the mistake President Bush did not make: He did not do nothing.

I didn't write this, a Northern California lawyer of all people did. His name is Raymond Kraft.

quote:

But for the war in Iraq, it is probable that the Jihad, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Ahmidinejad, et al., would soon, or by now, control the oil production of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and by political alliance the oil of Venezuela.

Quite a jump of logic there. And very typical of the American thinking that our allies are incapable of doing anything themselves. The Saudis have just as much to lose as we do. Don't think they'd roll over for Al Qaeda. Wouldn't it have been better to wage a "secret" war of stealth and special forces operatives? Like one that Donald Rumsfeld keeps insisting is working-- though we have less than 1/3 of Iraq under control with the current troop strengths. And run that secret war through a proxy such as the Saudis? And/or the Pakis who became our...somewhat close allies after 9/11? That would have worked BEFORE our invasion of Iraq. Not now. Now we ARE OBLIGATED to slug it out with them in Iraq to keep it under control.

And when was Al Qaeda on the verge of toppling Iraq? President Bush frequently states that we liberated the people of Iraq from a repressive and evil regime...Doesn't sound like a regime on the edge of collapse being taken over by terrorist. And also stated that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11.

What we did by invading Iraq made them stronger than ever before. Fomented hatred that was UNDER the surface in many countries (such as England) and brought it to the surface. The US invasion of Iraq has become the best recruiting tool for Al Qaeda since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It gives them a banner to run to.

to secure iraq, we have to drop this crap we have now. what we are doing right now is the same thing that lost nam for us. we cant go in half way. its too late to ull out if we do we will be attacked, and staying the same will get to many killed. to stop the insurgents we have to actively go in and find them. driving up and down the streets in humvees wont win this. surgically attacking terrorist storngholds with special forces does. we cant give them any breathing room.

Patoloco, I have to agree with you on this one. I do not think that we can run away now but we should have an exit plan (probably measured in years but a plan nonetheless.

It is nothing like Nam.

Running away from Iraq is not an option. This is not Vietnam. The terrorist islamist are at least a thousand times more dangerous than the communist. They are bent on the suicidal destruction of the free world. American must not only send thousands more troops to Iraq but must also destroy their sponsors which are Syria & Iran.

Since Iran is building & planning to use nukes & chemical weapoons, the U.S. should consider the option of nuking them to teach the mullahs a lesson like what the U.S. did to Japan. For several decades now the Japanese learned not to rape, torture, & murder millions of their neighboring nations by the nuclear bomb education.

i must have misworded my post. i dont want to pull out. i was equating our current strategy with nam. we can sit on this. to win we must be agressive. show em what the us military can do

I don't think anyone said we can or should "run away" from Iraq. I think Watchman is just being passionate about his views.

The policies that are preventing a decisive victory in Iraq never have nor never will lie in the hands of President Bush. The political/military advisory process is the hinderance. Troop commanders on the ground have actionable intel, are unable to use it. The Rules of Engagement are not the same from OIF1 to OIF3. We cannot play hardball because we "embolden" the Madhi Army, or Saddam Fedayeen, or Mujihadein fighters by causing destruction. We can't play soft with them because it demonstrates weakness. No one is willing to take the HEAT round for the collateral damage that will occur if we fight openly. Its not a SASO operation, nor was it ever. Armchair Generals cannot fight nor win this war. The power to make tactical decisions is removed from the field commander. It doesn't matter what the strategy is, its the execution, assessment, and refinement of it to make it effective.

These little bastards DO understand violence. It sends a clear message. I whole-heartedly agree with most of what everyone says. I stand on a different playing field, as I have fought and bled in that country. I know what it takes to win the battles, but its out of our hands to win the war.

I think that most have overlooked the key statement made in the post.

quote:

But for the war in Iraq, we would face, now, or soon, a Jihadist crescent of state-sponsors of Islamic Nazism armed with nuclear weapons, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and maybe Saudi Arabia. Because of President Bush's "mistake," we do not, and will not.

Nuclear Ends

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

I keep thinking of Lt.Col. West and the clearing barrel incident. The kind of thinking that came down on him (and we probably saved lives) is running the operation out there. IMO.

Iran Daily Says 9/11 a 'White House conspiracy'

quote:

Originally posted by thegunny:
I think that most have overlooked the key statement made in the post.

quote:

But for the war in Iraq, we would face, now, or soon, a Jihadist crescent of state-sponsors of Islamic Nazism armed with nuclear weapons, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and maybe Saudi Arabia. Because of President Bush's "mistake," we do not, and will not.

Nuclear Ends

The only problem with the key statement is highlighted in the link you provided, Gunny. It ends with "n" not "q".

hmmmm, so we should ignore a country that is actively enriching uranium to weapons grade material?

Hell no. But, last time I checked, we didn't find any weapons grade uranium in IraQ.

Had we not taken Iraq, its not much of a stretch to see that they would had soon had some. The region itself was the main focus of the original posting. Region to include Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Saudi...