Is this a Christian Crusade in the MidEast that we are conducting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dirtydog:
The opposite is true. Your statement belies a basic (and common) misunderstanding about who we are fighting. If your statement bore any resemblance to reality, then we wouldn’t have had Islamic terrorism for the past 30-40 years. The ultimate goal of Islamic terrorists is to change state policies and eventually entire governments and societies. Once you give in on one point, they will terrorize you over another. If anything other than that were true, Spain and France would no longer have to worry about terrorism. This is because they view inaction or acceptance of their demands as a sign of weakness, which they will eagerly exploit with new attacks and new demands. Thus, the only way to deal with them effectively is through shows of force and/or eradication. I thank God that we finally have a government in place willing to take such unpleasant actions.
Really - the opposite is true? So invading countries in the middle east without provocation only promotes good feelings in that region toward us? How about that. I always assumed that sort of action played in to the idea that the big, bad western world only wants to subjugate the followers of Allah. I didn’t know they WANTED us to subjugate them.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
How many attacked us? Maybe 20 people were involved in the 9/11 attacks. They’re dead.
Huh? 20 involved? 20 people hijacking the planes != 20 involved. For an operation like that, MANY more people were involved, and many of them aren’t dead, yet. We can’t “win” this war any more than we can get rid of every cockroach. I’m not going to stop calling the exterminator simply because he can’t get all the roaches. I won’t risk my childrens’ health to roaches and I won’t risk losing their freedom to terrorists, regardless of how many there are or how long they’re willing to fight.
 
sb,
Those 20 were backed up by millions. There are 100,000 US troops in Iraq, but they are backed up by all of us. We have whole nations arrayed against us eg. Iran. They are busy developing wmd to use on us. On YOU. Wake up. After Pearl Harbor we didn’t moan about how we deserved it and how misunderstood the fascists were. We fought and beat them. We are at war. Those who don’t support us are the enemy. Yes, that means the French too. Believe me, if they take out New York someday it will be Armageddon. So it is best if we beat them BEFORE that happens. We destroyed fascism and we can defeat the terrorists. If that means we have to destroy Islam then so be it.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
Really - the opposite is true? So invading countries in the middle east without provocation only promotes good feelings in that region toward us? How about that. I always assumed that sort of action played in to the idea that the big, bad western world only wants to subjugate the followers of Allah. I didn’t know they WANTED us to subjugate them.
So you really wanted to focus on Iraq. If that’s it, then say so. GWOT is bigger than just Iraq. Yeah, you’re right, Saddam was just a nice guy not bothering us at all. For 12 years, he was in full compliance with the U.N., he wasn’t shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zones (so that he couldn’t commit genocide), he wasn’t doing underhanded deals with the French to use oil for food money for weaponry, he had no links to any terrorist cells. Yeah, he was just an all around good guy. No threat to stability in the region or world peace at all. Oh, and he really, really liked the Israelis. Yeah, and we’re so bad. We subjugate everyone. We whipped Germany and Japan and then didn’t rebuild them, just added them to our monolithic American Empire. Oh, and we never let go of the Philipines or Cuba after beating Spain, either.

Oh, and if you think Saddam’s regime had anything at all to do with Islam, then you’re more into revisionist history than I’ve already gathered. The only people in Iraq who should feel subjugated are the Ba’athists. Oh, and surprise, they’re just about the only ones fighting, since they aren’t in a position to subjugate the Kurds, Shiites, or marsh Arabs any longer.
 
Well it isn´t a christian crusade for the reason that we don´t fight for Christ but the democracy and the catholics don´t live better but worse, greetings
 
40.png
dirtydog:
Huh? 20 involved? 20 people hijacking the planes != 20 involved. For an operation like that, MANY more people were involved, and many of them aren’t dead, yet. We can’t “win” this war any more than we can get rid of every cockroach. I’m not going to stop calling the exterminator simply because he can’t get all the roaches. I won’t risk my childrens’ health to roaches and I won’t risk losing their freedom to terrorists, regardless of how many there are or how long they’re willing to fight.
Well, we are the rest of the cockroaches responsible for 9/11? Where is the chief cockroach? We all know he and they were not in Iraq.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
sb,
Those 20 were backed up by millions. There are 100,000 US troops in Iraq, but they are backed up by all of us. We have whole nations arrayed against us eg. Iran. They are busy developing wmd to use on us. On YOU. Wake up. After Pearl Harbor we didn’t moan about how we deserved it and how misunderstood the fascists were. We fought and beat them. We are at war. Those who don’t support us are the enemy. Yes, that means the French too. Believe me, if they take out New York someday it will be Armageddon. So it is best if we beat them BEFORE that happens. We destroyed fascism and we can defeat the terrorists. If that means we have to destroy Islam then so be it.
By millions? How many of those millions do we need to kill? All of them? Call me Pollyanna, but I generally prefer war as a last resort, and only when it can be waged against a real, identifiable threat. Who is the enemy, in this “war on terror?” You give about 3 or 4 different enemies in your post - an unnamed “millions,” and Iran, and France, and those who don’t support us, and the “terrorists.” We created a quagmire in Iraq, and we still haven’t captured Osama bin Laden. Where do we go from here in this grand war on terror? The options are limitless when the enemy is as vague as you describe. I want to know specifics. What is the next step. Who do we invade next. How do we win the war on terror?
 
40.png
dirtydog:
So you really wanted to focus on Iraq. If that’s it, then say so. GWOT is bigger than just Iraq. Yeah, you’re right, Saddam was just a nice guy not bothering us at all. For 12 years, he was in full compliance with the U.N., he wasn’t shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zones (so that he couldn’t commit genocide), he wasn’t doing underhanded deals with the French to use oil for food money for weaponry, he had no links to any terrorist cells. Yeah, he was just an all around good guy. No threat to stability in the region or world peace at all. Oh, and he really, really liked the Israelis. Yeah, and we’re so bad. We subjugate everyone. We whipped Germany and Japan and then didn’t rebuild them, just added them to our monolithic American Empire. Oh, and we never let go of the Philipines or Cuba after beating Spain, either.

Oh, and if you think Saddam’s regime had anything at all to do with Islam, then you’re more into revisionist history than I’ve already gathered. The only people in Iraq who should feel subjugated are the Ba’athists. Oh, and surprise, they’re just about the only ones fighting, since they aren’t in a position to subjugate the Kurds, Shiites, or marsh Arabs any longer.
Saddam was not a nice guy, but he was no threat to us.
I didn’t say we subjugated anyone, but it is easy to see how ordinary Arabs will see our invasion of Iraq as an attempt at subjugation.
I don’t get your point about Saddam and Islam.
 
40.png
Zoot:
The Christian enthusiasm for killing is unsurpassed.
IMO the athiest Stalin could have made anyone’s killing hall of fame. How about Pol Pot in Cambodia? Sadam could have made anyone’s starting team. Tojo was no slacker in the killing arena whith his death marches and slaughter of Chinese. You would be hard pressed to prove Hitler was a real Christian. The Muslims in Africa are doing themselves proud whith the wholesale slaughter of Christian minorities.
 
40.png
Lance:
IMO the athiest Stalin could have made anyone’s killing hall of fame. How about Pol Pot in Cambodia? Sadam could have made anyone’s starting team. Tojo was no slacker in the killing arena whith his death marches and slaughter of Chinese. You would be hard pressed to prove Hitler was a real Christian. The Muslims in Africa are doing themselves proud whith the wholesale slaughter of Christian minorities.
Code:
Yes, you are right Lance. This is exactly what is happening today. Saddam is a puppy dog compared to the real pit bulls out there (or who have been like Stalin). So where would be the next move be…Africa? But Africa is not a threat to the US…neither was Saddam. Pol Pot is not a threat to the US…neither was Saddam. You have much more to worry about with bin Ladden than with Saddam.

And if your reasoning for the US to have entered Iraq was to save the people from Saddam…it would be your duty to rescue the rest of genocides going on. You need to be consistent here.

But I have a feeling that the motivation for saving Iraq was not altrustic at all…but, of course, this is only me speaking.

$.02 duly noted…

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
sb,
War as the last resort? We are ALREADY at war. Who is the enemy? I was correct. We have many enemies. Osama and his minions are one, Iran is another, North Korea is another, and there are other terrorist groups loosly affiliated with states or operating on their own. All of them are enemies who seek to kill you. This is a different kind of war. And yes the French are making themselves our enemies. Why? Napoleonic complex apparently. We can’t afford to lose this war.

You remind me of the liberals during the cold war. Always apologizing for the US to the communists. Always denying they were evil. Now we know. They were evil. Their gulags were horrible. And yes we are better then them. We are also better then the terrorists. There is NO moral equivolence. Stop being an apologist for the enemy. Lenin named your type as “useful idiots”. Learn from the past and don’t repeat the mistakes that enslaved millions.
 
40.png
Shoshana:
Code:
Yes, you are right Lance. This is exactly what is happening today. Saddam is a puppy dog compared to the real pit bulls out there (or who have been like Stalin). So where would be the next move be…Africa? But Africa is not a threat to the US…neither was Saddam. Pol Pot is not a threat to the US…neither was Saddam. You have much more to worry about with bin Ladden than with Saddam.

And if your reasoning for the US to have entered Iraq was to save the people from Saddam…it would be your duty to rescue the rest of genocides going on. You need to be consistent here.

But I have a feeling that the motivation for saving Iraq was not altrustic at all…but, of course, this is only me speaking.

$.02 duly noted…

Blessings,
Shoshana
Are you saying that because we can’t stop all tyrants we should do nothing? I can’t stop all abortions but I may have an effect on one woman by picketing one abortion clinic. Am I wrong to do so?
 
Words of wisdom from a newly retired 4-Star General

What a magnificent and insightful view of what this war on Terrorism is actually about.

General Hawley, is a newly retired USAF 4 star general. He commanded the Air Combat Command [our front-line fighters and bombers at Langley AFB, VA. He is now retired and no longer required to be politically correct. A true patriot!

"Since the attack [9-11], I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You’ve heard them too. Here they are:

(1) “We’re not good, they’re not evil, everything is relative.”

Listen carefully: We’re good, they’re evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying “We’re good” doesn’t mean, “We’re perfect.” Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens.

(2) “Violence only leads to more violence.”

This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here’s the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought through, professional, well executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That’s right, dead. Not “on trial,” not “reeducated,” not “nurtured back into the bosom of love.” Dead.

(3) “The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us.”

For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. “After all, they reasoned), you can see a license plate from 200 miles away.” This is very helpful if you’ve been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here’s the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can’t just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say “Hi ya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella.” Well, you can, but all you’d be doing is giving the bad guys a story they’ll be telling for years."

(4) “These people are poor and helpless, and that’s why they’re angry at us.”

Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer’s frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohammed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. It’s the same today."

(5) “Any profiling is racial profiling.”

Who’s killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I’m crushed. Please come back. Let’s all stop singing “We Are the World” for a minute and think practically. I don’t want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt.Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, “Well, at least we didn’t offend them.”

*SO HERE’S what I resolve for the New Year:

Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter’s political science professor says, we didn’t start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, “No More Hiroshima’s?” I wish I had one that says, “No More Pearl Harbors.”

“If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.”
 
40.png
Marie:
Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, “No More Hiroshima’s?” I wish I had one that says, “No More Pearl Harbors.”

QUOTE]
Code:
Karl Keating would be hard-pressed to agree with you…and so would I, sweat pea…😃

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
40.png
Lance:
Are you saying that because we can’t stop all tyrants we should do nothing? I can’t stop all abortions but I may have an effect on one woman by picketing one abortion clinic. Am I wrong to do so?
True.

Attitudes like this are just one more obstacle to doing the right thing. Those who do the right thing are blasted for not doing a different right thing. Those who do nothing usually are held blameless.
 
Karl Keating would be hard-pressed to agree with you…and so would I, sweat pea…😃

Blessings,
Shoshana

Somehow I doubt a 4 star would care too much for Karl’s learned opinion, unless Karl actually has a TS clearance and can formulate an opinion based on what the general knows. Anyway, since I’m not retired, I think its prudent that I leave the discussion to the rest of you. I’ll leave you with this. Before you buy in to the half-baked reasonings of the NY Times or Dan Rather, get into some history. Some of you sound like Neville Chamberlain. Saddam’s #1 goal was to restore the Caliphate (although his would have been an atheistic and socialist one). He started this quest with the invasion of Kuwait. He had an unholy alliance with France and others to spend oil for food money on weapons. Even if he hadn’t supported terrorists (which he did), he would have eventually turned on his neighbors, especially Israel. Such a move would have drawn us into a much larger conflict than what we have now. Maybe you’re not too concerned about a war that would make this “quagmire” pale in comparison, but we in the military are tired of politicians who use our capabilities in a reactive way. We let the Nazis build up their war machine in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles and lost millions of lives for it. I thank God everyday our president and congress did not let Saddam continue violating U.N. sanctions in the same way.
 

Even if he hadn’t supported terrorists (which he did), he would have eventually turned on his neighbors, especially Israel.​

Hmmm, wasn’t Isreal supplying weapons to Iraq during the Iran/ Iraq war?
As for Sadam invading Kuwait he was pretty much beaten into submission wasn’t he? Unless you are saying The U.S didn’t finnish the job back in the 90’s?
 
40.png
dirtydog:
Karl Keating would be hard-pressed to agree with you…and so would I, sweat pea…😃

Blessings,
Shoshana

Somehow I doubt a 4 star would care too much for Karl’s learned opinion, unless Karl actually has a TS clearance and can formulate an opinion based on what the general knows.

So be it.

Anyway, since I’m not retired, I think its prudent that I leave the discussion to the rest of you. I’ll leave you with this. Before you buy in to the half-baked reasonings of the NY Times or Dan Rather, get into some history. Some of you sound like Neville Chamberlain. Saddam’s #1 goal was to restore the Caliphate (although his would have been an atheistic and socialist one). He started this quest with the invasion of Kuwait. He had an unholy alliance with France and others to spend oil for food money on weapons. Even if he hadn’t supported terrorists (which he did), he would have eventually turned on his neighbors, especially Israel.
Such a move would have drawn us into a much larger conflict than what we have now. Maybe you’re not too concerned about a war that would make this “quagmire” pale in comparison, but we in the military are tired of politicians who use our capabilities in a reactive way. We let the Nazis build up their war machine in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles and lost millions of lives for it.

And praytell. exactly when did the US go to war in WW2??? I must hear it from your mouth so to speak…

I thank God everyday our president and congress did not let Saddam continue violating U.N. sanctions in the same way.

Here again there is inconsistency…Israel contines to violate UN sanctions. And batw, they are getting nowhere with their war on terrorism.
Code:
 
40.png
Lance:
Are you saying that because we can’t stop all tyrants we should do nothing? I can’t stop all abortions but I may have an effect on one woman by picketing one abortion clinic. Am I wrong to do so?
Code:
I would be most grateful to God Almighty if one abortion could be avoided amongst the millions being performed. Boy, talk abour terrorism.

Lance, I too have picketed the hospital for a couple of years and prayed the rosary with the group. I even brought my very young son of about 5 holding a picket sign to get the message across (without going to detail with him exactly what he was doing).

But stopping one abortion is not exactly like invading a country that would cause repercussions throughout the world. You can’t even compre the two.

Blessings,
Shoshana smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_12.gif
 
40.png
dirtydog:
. We let the Nazis build up their war machine in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles and lost millions of lives for it. I thank God everyday our president and congress did not let Saddam continue violating U.N. sanctions in the same way.
Code:
There is no comparison between WW2 and Iraq. Boy, you should know that. How many countries did Hitler invade? How many countries did Saddam invade? It doesn’t take a rockey science to figure that one out. You don’t even need 4 stars, 3 stars, 2stars, and or even one star…sheshhhhh

You continue praying for your president…he needs it. Like so many others, like mine. President Reagan would’ve contested this motion…big time. He didn’t use any invasion to fell communism. He would be doing this :tsktsk: to his colleague.

Blessings,
Shoshana smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_2_62.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top