I have the distinct impression that AQ has not been defeated, if that was the case in Iraq. Iraq has a majority Shi'a population. AQ likes them only in comparison to Jewish people. What is far more likely is that AQ has gone underground, (figuritively) to regroup for a future attack. If you were to look for them to be living more or less openly in a failed state, you would probably find them,,,, and regrouping for a future attack,,, when the time is right... and on their timeline. The greatest fear of the Republicans is that Obama will be successful in bringing the nation, if not the world back from the brink of total economic ruin. That is the legacy of the final year of the Bush administration. That ruin could only have been the result of republican incompetence and unfettered greed. In four years it is quite possible that the economy will at least be on the way to recovery..... wasn't it Bush who needed up to a trillion dollars to bail out his banker buddies? yet the weakened stock market is not recovering. And now the three domestic automakers are moving close to bankrupty,,,, because of a legacy of trying to tell consumers what they could have.....or Toyotas. If Obama is to be successful, the republicans will have to curb their greed, and possibly have to move over for a new breed of business,,,, that is based on giving the consumers what they wish to pay for,,, and can afford. If that happens is there a small town in Redneck USA where a republican would not lose his/her deposit. On Feb 25, 4:07 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you aware that to fight an ideal is ludicrous ?? That to war > against one simply imbeds it and disperses that ideal to others... > have you NEVER read a history book ?? Told a teenager he/she can not > do something ?? There has been no "battle" won. Since Iraq started > there has been a huge change. Because of the US methodology in using > guns against ideals it is no longer a gender specific fight. The women > were holding down a lot of men from joining the Fanatic front, now > they are instead backing the men to join and doing so themselves. > GREAT WIN !!!! you have DOUBLED the pool from which they draw their > backers and fighters. > > There are so many facets to this thing that you have NO clue about > because you have NO clue as to their culture and traditions. Most of > what they are doing and HOW they do it goes way beyond Mohhamed and > his (like the bibles) erroneous teachings. > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq > > > Yes we won in Iraq, which is but one battlefield in the broader WOT > > which include the battlefields of Afghanistan/Pakistan... Your straw- > > man is demanding the winning/won in Iraq equates to a won in the > > WOT... And that assumption is false... > > > On Feb 24, 10:53 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:38 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > 1) you claimed "First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? > >> > Robert Gates who was Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > >> > My reply "Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central > >> > front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... > >> > AQ went to Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it > >> > returned back to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan > >> > where government rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > >> So let me get this straight a BATTLE has been won, territory gained. > >> That does NOT equate to "winning" when speaking of a "war". > > >> > 2) you claimed "Third I was under the impression that this was a "war > >> > on terror". Your claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that > >> > there are no more terrorists... > > >> > Again my reply "The Central front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki > >> > border --AS IT HAD TO DO." That is to say stateless terrorism is just > >> > that, stateless and mobile and that in all wars central fronts change > >> > as what happened in this war... > > >> again you admit there is no victory. > > >> > 3) You claimed "Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for > >> > that formal expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent > >> > terms the need for continued US occupation. > > >> I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq who > >> had absolutely NO terrorist problem to begin with, that would be you. > >> How can you "win" a situation you created in its entirety ?? As far as > >> partisan battlefields I have been present on several on three > >> different continents and involved in the solution of those > >> conflicts... just where do you draw YOUR purported expertise > >> from??....... > > >> especially your claim that Iraq was somehow used to draw AQ out and > >> onto a battlefield so they could be defeated by conventional > >> forces..... Show me ANY proof of this as a position prior to the > >> conflict.... It is PURE revisionism trying to make the outcome meet > >> made up stories. > > >> Your explanations are as dearly and sorely lacking as your revisionist > >> scheme to explain an entirely illegal enterprise that cost more than > >> the Serb/Bosnia war that effected far more people, far more territory > >> and resulted in absolute and lasting Republics being formed all under > >> existing international covenant. The "proof" that these two conflicts > >> as far as the vested combatants is as non-existant as your basis for > >> your position. > > >> > It is clear that you are looking to define war in terms of formalized > >> > nation-state to nation-state which have more structured beginnings and > >> > endings... This logic is a straw-man when dealing with wars that > >> > involve non state actors (even those backed by existing states)... > >> > In these war declarations are often attacks as 9/11 and peace treaties > >> > are the decline and cessation of abnormal violence, that is to say > >> > actions rather than scraps of paper... It is also clear, in how I > >> > have written on the WOT, that I am not bound by your prejudice that > >> > all wars, including "unconventional wars" must have formal > >> > declarations of war and peace... Throughout history unconventional > >> > war normal do not have such definative starting and ending points as > >> > most historians known... > > >> > So yes, I did respond directly to you points... One is entitled to > >> > opinion but not facts... > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:42 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> and not a single point countered... not a single question answered... > > >> >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central front has > >> >> > moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... AQ went to > >> >> > Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it returned back > >> >> > to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where government > >> >> > rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > >> >> > On Feb 22, 1:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > Lew, > > >> >> > > First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? Robert Gates who > >> >> > > was > >> >> > > Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > >> >> > > Second I would like a reliable/cerdible source quote to add any > >> >> > > credence that Obama or any one else for that matter is in favor of > >> >> > > any > >> >> > > serviceman or woman being killed or an admission that is solely YOUR > >> >> > > opinion. > > >> >> > > Third I was under the impression that this was a "war on terror". > >> >> > > Your > >> >> > > claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that there are no more > >> >> > > terrorists.... please explain your statement in connection with the > >> >> > > Bush claim (and only claim) throughout that this is a "war on > >> >> > > terror". > > >> >> > > Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for that formal > >> >> > > expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent terms the > >> >> > > need > >> >> > > for continued US occupation. > > >> >> > > Failing in your ability to do the above a simple statement covering > >> >> > > your bias and lack of situational grasp will suffice. > > >> >> > > On Feb 22, 11:52 am, lew <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > Republicans haven't reached the point of Democrat desperation a > >> >> > > > couple > >> >> > > > of years ago when DEMOCRATS cheered each WOUNDED and each DEAD > >> >> > > > military report as a victory to defeat the hated George W. Bush. > > >> >> > > > Republicans can NEVER stoop so low as to promote a losing strategy > >> >> > > > (Vote against the Surge) just to attain more Ameican woundings and > >> >> > > > deaths to gain politically. > > >> >> > > > Our own presidemt, Barack Obama, voted against the surge because > >> >> > > > he > >> >> > > > knew that could/would lead to more woundings and deaths. > > >> >> > > > BUSH WON IN IRAQ. Democrats lovingly referred to Iraq as "Bush's > >> >> > > > War." > > >> >> > > > BUSH WON BUSH'S WAR. > > >> >> > > > On Feb 22, 6:53 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > Why do Republicans Desperately need President Obama > >> >> > > > > and the Democrat controlled Congress to fail? > > >> >> > > > > Sean Lewis > >> >> > > > > February 22, 2009 > > >> >> > > > > President Obama has been President for barely > >> >> > > > > a month. > > >> >> > > > > He is facing a Crisis equal if not greater that the > >> >> > > > > Crisis Bush faced after 9/11. > > >> >> > > > > After 9/11 the country unified behind President Bush > >> >> > > > > and gave him almost unanimous support to deal > >> >> > > > > with the crisis. It was about country first, not party. > > >> >> > > > > Yet even BEFORE President Obama took office > >> >> > > > > Republicans, their surrogates and the press have > >> >> > > > > ridiculed and second guessed EVERYTHING > >> >> > > > > President Obama has done. > > >> >> > > > > President Obama has asked for input from all corners because > >> >> > > > > he NEEDS the help of ALL AMERICANS to deal with > >> >> > > > > this crisis the same way ALL AMERICANS rallied behind > >> >> > > > > President Bush on 9/11. > > >> >> > > > > Republicans instead of offering their advice and then > >> >> > > > > understanding > >> >> > > > > that they DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY on what Obama > >> >> > > > > decides and backing him in a unified effort to deal with the > >> >> > > > > economic problems are instead ridiculing every decision and > >> >> > > > > proclaiming failure before the ink is even dry on the BILLS > >> >> > > > > leaving > >> >> > > > > Committees! > > >> >> > > > > The Country is facing multiple crisis of which any one could > >> >> > > > > create disaster for America and Americans. Yet the Republicans > >> >> > > > > seem hell bent on being obstructionists, and adding to the > >> >> > > > > chaos. > > >> >> > > > > Why? > > >> >> > > > > Because the simple fact is that if Obama and the Democratic > >> >> > > > > lead Congress fixes the many problems left behind by the > >> >> > > > > Republican controlled Congress and Republican Administration > >> >> > > > > it will CONFIRM and VALIDATE that the Republicans were > >> >> > > > > irresponsible and incompetent during the years they had Majority > >> >> > > > > Control in the Government. > > >> >> > > > > Republicans are not thinking about the Country or American > >> >> > > > > people first, they are thinking about the REPUBLICAN party > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
