Stopping the Next War (Iran)

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

September 14, 2007
PJB: Stopping the Next War
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan

President Bush has won the Battle of September.

When he turns over the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009, there will likely be as many U.S. troops in Iraq as there were when Congress was elected to bring them home in November 2006.

That is the meaning of Gen. Petraeus’ recommendation, adopted by President Bush, that 6,000 U.S. troops be home by Christmas and the surge of 30,000 ended by April. Come November 2008, there will likely still be 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Will this make America safer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked. “I don’t know,” answered the general. An honest answer. None of us knows.

The general did know, however, that “a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences.”

So we are trapped, fighting a war in which “victory” is not assured and perhaps not attainable – to avert a strategic disaster and humanitarian catastrophe should we walk away.

While the posturing of the Democrats, using Petraeus as a foil for their frustration and rage, was appalling, it is understandable. For, as this writer warned the day Baghdad fell, this time, we really “hit the tar baby.”

What has the war cost? Going on 3,800 U.S. dead and 28,000 wounded. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead; 2 million, including most Christians and much of the professional class, have fled. Millions have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where their families had lived for generations.

Once the most advanced country in the Arab world, Iraq has been devastated and is coming apart. Sectarian, civil and tribal war has broken out. Al-Qaida has a presence. And it is a fair prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran.

Across the region, the situation appears bleak. In Pakistan, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself. Bin Laden is sending out tapes. Gen. Musharraf, who rules a nation of 170 million with atom bombs, is floundering. The Taliban have made a comeback. As our allies have left or are leaving Iraq, including the Brits, so, too, the NATO allies in Afghanistan are wearying of the struggle.

In the United States, the war has taken its toll, as do all no-win wars. With the cost of the two wars closing in on $1 trillion, we are as divided as we were during Korea and Vietnam.

As Truman fell to 23 percent after firing Gen. MacArthur, and was drubbed in New Hampshire, and LBJ broken after Tet and dropped out, Bush has seen his support fall from near 90 percent at “Mission Accomplished” to near 30 percent. Approval of his war leadership is virtually nonexistent.

Gen. Petraeus is trusted; his commander in chief is not.

To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.

As for the “cakewalk” crowd that accused opponents of the war of lacking in patriotism, they never repented of their demagoguery. Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about Saddam’s awesome weapons and ties to 9/11, or their assurances that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like Paris in ‘44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they have never been called to account.

Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.

This time the target is Tehran – and once again, they have the ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.

Speaking to the American Legion, Bush used rhetoric against Iran equal in bellicosity to anything he used on Iraq before invading.

Iran “is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran “funds terrorist groups like Hamas. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban.” Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology threatens to put the Middle East and Gulf “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”

As Bush ratchets up the rhetoric, Russia, China and, reportedly, Germany are balking at new U.N. sanctions. That leaves Bush only the military option if he wishes to effect the nuclear castration of Iran. And Gen. Petraeus just provided him the rationale.

“It is increasingly apparent,” said Petraeus, “that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”

Petraeus’ charge that Iran is fighting a “proxy war” against America comports with the new War Party propaganda line that we have been at war with Iran since 1979 and Bush needs no authorization from Congress to fight it more aggressively.

Congress gave Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. Any chance Congress will at least insist the administration come to Capitol Hill to make the case for the next war, on Iran, before Bush launches it? Probably not.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

I posted this to show the traditional American conservative view on war. This was the view of the American Republican Party before it was hijacked by corporate owned, globalist, imperialists known as neo-conservatives.

[FreeSouthCarolina]

The surge is actually working you know. There can't be much debate there. If you disagree with the war it should be about the U.S. intentions there not who's winning. I disagree with it because I don't like nation building. I do want to wipe that Islamofascist garbage off the face of the earth though, and no I don't consider Palestinians Islamofascists necessarily.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

The surge is actually working you know. There can't be much debate there. If you disagree with the war it should be about the U.S. intentions there not who's winning. I disagree with it because I don't like nation building. I do want to wipe that Islamofascist garbage off the face of the earth though, and no I don't consider Palestinians Islamofascists necessarily.

I disagree with nation-building too. I disagree with pre-emptive war. All though I do vehemently despise the Islamists I also think they have some points that must be addressed. If the majority of Muslims do not want US corporations or US military forces on their lands then who are we to be there? Who are we to unequivically support Israel?

If we believe in American sovereignty (which I most certainly do) then we must respect the sovereignty of other nations.

[BunyipDude]

I do want to wipe that Islamofascist garbage off the face of the earth though, and no I don't consider Palestinians Islamofascists necessarily.

But Saddam was not an Islamofascist. He was a bastard, no doubt, but at least he was a secular bastard. In the Iran-Iraq War, he was our ally against a country that really was Islamofascist. Now, we've taken him out, and we've just given Iran quite possibly the biggest victory it'll ever have - we removed the only government that posed a regional threat to them. When Iran and Iraq fought each other, it was a stalemate, so we basically just won that war for them.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

But Saddam was not an Islamofascist. He was a bastard, no doubt, but at least he was a secular bastard. In the Iran-Iraq War, he was our ally against a country that really was Islamofascist. Now, we've taken him out, and we've just given Iran quite possibly the biggest victory it'll ever have - we removed the only government that posed a regional threat to them. When Iran and Iraq fought each other, it was a stalemate, so we basically just won that war for them.

Part of me strongly believes that we invaded Iraq on behest of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is without a doubt the biggest financier of Wahhabist Islamic expansionism and Sunni Islamist militancy throughout the world.

Even here in America in Muslim communities that aren't Wahhabist the Saudis have built Wahhabist Mosques that are indoctrinating historically Sufi Muslims (such as Afghan immigrants) in Wahhabist theology and Islamist ideology.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

The same thing is happening in England, France, Germany and in traditionally liberal Muslim countries such as Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya and the like.

[BunyipDude]

Part of me strongly believes that we invaded Iraq on behest of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is without a doubt the biggest financier of Wahhabist Islamic expansionism and Sunni Islamist militancy throughout the world.

Even here in America in Muslim communities that aren't Wahhabist the Saudis have built Wahhabist Mosques that are indoctrinating historically Sufi Muslims (such as Afghan immigrants) in Wahhabist theology and Islamist ideology.

That's possible. But mostly, I think it's because the neo-cons wanted to have a foothold in the region for military and economic reasons, and Iraq appeared to be the easiest place to start. The fact that Saddam's regime was secular is precisely why we could expect his army to offer little resistance...they're not like the Iranians who showed during the Iran-Iraq War that they'd charge across minefields for the Ayatollah. Of course, what nobody wanted to acknowledge was that the invasion would be the easy part. The hard part was what happened afterwards.

[Kat]

The surge is actually working you know. There can't be much debate there. If you disagree with the war it should be about the U.S. intentions there not who's winning. I disagree with it because I don't like nation building. I do want to wipe that Islamofascist garbage off the face of the earth though, and no I don't consider Palestinians Islamofascists necessarily.

working? how? you mean by successfully bringing violence down to pre surge levels? :hmmm:

okay just gonna go back in time a bit to the beginning of the surge... what was the goal of the surge? to prop up the Iriaqi government for a few months so they could straighten themselves out politically. they have gone BACKWARDS politically. we can stay in there with our fingers in the dyke, alternately holding back absolute chaos and causing it for centuries if we like it will get us nowhere. the surge has not been a success. It does not matter that US soldiers have seen some success, and it will not matter if they acheive full success, the politics side must work too, how long do we give it? I am sure your sources will tell you it is (yawn) the last throes of the insurgency (again) that is simply not true. We have also uncovered just today billions more dollars imbezzled from the reconstruction funds, the largest dam in iraq, was "fixed" by us contractors and is more dangerous now than in its previos bombed out condition. and is an accident waiting to happen.

[Kat]

You know Jimmy, I completely agree with Pat Buchanan on the Iraq war, what I dont get is, if all the conservatives think like him and not bush, why did you vote for and elect bush and not pat? they both ran for president in 2000 you see. And Pat Buchanan not only lost, but he lost soundly. And since this folly in iraq enjoyed obscenely high approval ratings by US conservatives until a year or so ago, I am not really very inclined to sit idly by while you all gulp and say... but but but this is not me, i did not agree with this from the start.... though better late than never i guess, i still aint buyin it.

Though i am completely flummoxed by many of that Pat Buchanans views

( for instance his insistence in a book he wrote in the 1980's that zyclon b was actually not used to assasinate Jews in hitlers concentration camps, it was actually only a delouser. the holocaust was greatly over rated says he)

I would definately prefer him to bush. If most conservatives felt the same, they certainly had that option.

I also wanna say i a little disgusted by the broad sweeping generalisations of all muslims i see on this thread.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Many conservatives still like Pat Buchanan's political beliefs more than Bush but they considered Bush more electable. It's the same reason Ron Paul probably won't win the Republican nomination. A lot of conservatives (except for the one's in denial about the Iraq War) and even many liberals would like to see Ron Paul win but he probably won't get the nomination because the media is saying that Guiliani or Mitt Romney are the only hope to beat Hillary Clinton (who's own foreign policy doesn't seem much different from the neo-cons).

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

I think many traditional conservatives are anti-zionist. They don't trust the Jewish state and they don't like what happend to the Palestinians. Since it is nearly impossible to separate Israel from the Jews and zionism sometimes that anti-zionism (wrongly) becomes anti-semitism as well.

I've never read any of Buchanan's articles that seemed out right anti-Muslim. I saw them as anti-Islamist, but Islamist is a religious/political movement and its not purely religious by any means. From what I've read Buchanan is pro-Palestinian and definitely stood up for the Lebanese and condemned the Israeli bombings of Beiruit.

I am anti-Islamist as well. They are just as imperialist as any corporate driven Western power.

[Kat]

I have to agree her foreign policy is not much different than the neo cons, though she is very different in a couple of very HUGE ways... for one, she does not buy into the back story of needing to strategically gain control of one section of the globe rich in er... natural resources (see Plan for a new american century) and she actually has exhibitied in word and deed a strong belief in diplomacy.

As a liberal, i dont think she makes the best candidate for our country either but Jimmy, Hillary Clinton aint no dubya.

Beyond that, I agree with you, i dont like Hillarys willingness to ignore the constitution and grant the current president power which he is not entitled to under US law. I think it is cynically done in order to set precedent for the expansion of presidential power further, when (if) she gets elected. I dont believe it is because she agrees with the constant sabre rattling and posturing we are seeing currently, but because she would like the power to railroad what she wants through like bush has done. that needs to end, even though i have no doubt that hillary will not be running through things that are quite as destructive as this bunch. whether it is for personal gain or for the best of the country, i believe that if something cannot make it through both branches of government, across the presidents signing desk and hold up to supreme court perusal if necesarry, it should be made into law.



but all that being said, surely conservatives could have seen this coming with bush even before the 00 elections, I could, and I ant even that smart. And surely you could have spoken out in the time we led up to Iraq? Instead the majority of this country ate thier freedom fries and called anyone who dared question the wisdom of this (the pat buchanan they wanted to elect included) traitors, efefectively blocking all form of debate, further more the House and Senate were then populated by traditional conservatives, why were they not speaking out? why werent all of you who preffered pat buchanan saying no ?

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

After September 11th so many conservatives were blinded by their feelings of revenge and misunderstanding of the Islamists and the history of the Muslim world that they took G. W. Bush's word for it when he said there were weapons of mass destruction there or that Hussein colluded with Al Qaeda to bring down the WTC on September 11th.

Buchanan said no, Ron Paul said no, but no one was listening to them. I was one of those who was against it from the beginning. It didn't make any sense to topple a secular regime in the Middle East when we were at war with the Islamists. I don't think most of our men and women in this country could tell you the political/religious ideological differences between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

[Hildy]

Though i am completely flummoxed by many of that Pat Buchanans views

Good word Kat!

Pat Buchanan.....a hero of yours Jimmy? ........The same guy who once said that the US should take over parts of Canada to get more white citizens?

Ultra Right-Wing Conservative Christian Bigot who has developed the disturbing habits of believing his own rhetoric and savagely attacking anyone-and-everyone who is not like him. He once proclamed that if he was to have been elected president (in 1996), his first action would have been to place Bill Clinton under arrest.

(Buchanan doesn't stand a snowballs-chance-in-Hell of being elected ANYTHING in 2008, but if...through some horrible fracturing of the Cosmic Whatsits...he were to become president, his first action in office would be to pat George W. Bush on the back, vigorously shake his hand and tell him "Well done, great job!"
Such thoughts should make any sane, rational person want to run to the nearest toilet.)

He also DEFENDED Congressman Foley (that's the one who was sending homo-erotic E-mails to under-age teenage boys. One wonders if he would have eagerly defended President Clinton if all HE had been doing was sending erotic E-mails to Monica Lewinsky)

Some of his more "wholesome" activities have been: Praising and defending Richard Nixon; Worrying incessantly about "cultural pollution" while scoffing at actual pollution such as smog and chemicals dumped into our drinking water; Waging war against Political Correctness; Believing wholeheartedly that our children should be taught lies and myths in their history classes and creationism in their science classes; Bashing-and-smashing homosexuals, AIDS patients, unwed mothers and rock' musicians (and happily claiming resposiblity while AT THE SAME TIME denying these actions...and praising anyone else who also does the same); Butting into other peoples affairs; Revelling in the fact that he's anti-semitic; Treating women like chatel slaves; Verbally attacking anyone-and-anyone who is wealthier, healthier, or happier than he is; Utterly against Martin Luther King Day; And just being the sort of anal-retentive person that gives Conservatives a bad name.


"The truth is that Pat Buchanan was trained at the knee of Richard Milhouse Nixon."
-CBS News's Nightwatch,
December 11th, 1986.

yeah......that guy!

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Pat Buchanan is anti-globalist, anti-pre-emptive war and genuinely for protectionist policies that would protect the jobs of millions of working class Americans. Hell yes he's a hero of mine when it comes to American politics.

Ron Paul is the same way...that's why you'll find me voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. Never again will I choose a globalist or an international socialist who will sell out my country's sovereignty and drag us into never ending wars in the name of securing oil interests and neo-conservative (or liberal idealist) nation building.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Under the US Constitution the rights of all are guaranteed. Yes there were dark spots in my nation's history, but we've made many strides in righting the wrongs. Pat Buchanan is against social engineering, and so am I. If you ask me things like affirmative action, political correctness, forced bussing and the like only strain race relations in this country. Political correctness is a form of thought control. It's Orwellian to the core.

[Hildy]

Jimmy..........boy o' boy, I'd have to say you were you wet-nursed on a bunch of bull-crap! I was being sarcastic when I asked if he was your hero......to use kat's word, this IS VERY flummoxing! (:icon_wink: )

Conservative, my a**! He's not EVEN a die-hard Conservative!

Definition of a Conservative

1) One who espouses a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

2) One who believes in less government being better government.

3) One who believes in such "outmoded" ideas as civil liberties (freedom of speech, separation of church and state, right to keep and bear arms, that kind of thing)

4) One for whom the Republican Party no longer truly speaks.

5) a word that today's so-called "conservatives" don't know the definition of.

"Today's so-called 'conservatives' don't even know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all." -- Barry Goldwater



I can't believe a smart, intelligent guy like yourself would even make such a statement about Buchanan! He's a draft-dodger and a racist, (he's said some pretty racist/fascist crap,) who wrote a few speaches for Nixon & Reagon! Big deal, he then changed parties, thinking that would get him elected President....HA! Well the people are smarter than that, thank God! And on top of it all, he still endorsed Bush, even though he said he was against Iraq, so what does that tell ye????:confused:

I'm optomitistic that you find my opionions on this subject more sententious rather than being breviloquent! (Kat will know what I mean!)

Cheers, Hildy

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

I feel like I'm losing my country Hildy. I really do. My father has bought into the neo-con lies about this war. My mother has long bought into the Democrat Party lie about being for the poor and the downtrodden. All the while our Constitution is going out the window. We're losing what made America great. I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan especially in some of his personal opinions, but he's been a stand up guy when it comes to foreign policy especially in regards to this war in Iraq and his opposition to multi-lateral trade treaties that have been devastating to the American working class (especially trade unionists like myself).

I respect the views of all Hildy. I myself think there's room for all political thought here in the States. Unfortunately it's only the political thought of the elites that's best represented in our government.

[BunyipDude]

I feel like I'm losing my country Hildy. I really do. My father has bought into the neo-con lies about this war. My mother has long bought into the Democrat Party lie about being for the poor and the downtrodden. All the while our Constitution is going out the window. We're losing what made America great. I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan especially in some of his personal opinions, but he's been a stand up guy when it comes to foreign policy especially in regards to this war in Iraq and his opposition to multi-lateral trade treaties that have been devastating to the American working class (especially trade unionists like myself).

I respect the views of all Hildy. I myself think there's room for all political thought here in the States. Unfortunately it's only the political thought of the elites that's best represented in our government.

Dude...Buchanan is a right-wing extremist. A RELIGIOUS right-wing extremist. If you're so worried about the loss of the Constitution, then vote Libertarian, not Reform Party. Libertarians are pro-Constitution and isolationist as well, but at least they are also socially liberal. They take the best of both sides.

[Hildy]

I feel like I'm losing my country Hildy. I really do. My father has bought into the neo-con lies about this war. My mother has long bought into the Democrat Party lie about being for the poor and the downtrodden. All the while our Constitution is going out the window. We're losing what made America great. I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan especially in some of his personal opinions, but he's been a stand up guy when it comes to foreign policy especially in regards to this war in Iraq and his opposition to multi-lateral trade treaties that have been devastating to the American working class (especially trade unionists like myself).

I respect the views of all Hildy. I myself think there's room for all political thought here in the States. Unfortunately it's only the political thought of the elites that's best represented in our government.

Jimmy, well I'll give you that! We all feel that way at certain times, and it's disheartening I know. I can tell you have a good head on your shoulders and most importantly you have integrity and you will not compromise your principals, and that's a good thing! But think of it this way, no matter how bad you think its getting in America, take a look around. Excluding the assinine war in iraq, things are pretty good here. At least the economy is on the upswing and hopefully you are working, so things could be a lot worse.

I thank God everyday that I am healthy and happy and living in a country where there is liberty and justice. Where we are free from oppressors, and we have no foreign occupation within our borders killing and bombing our citizens. A place where I CAN voice my opinion, and that I am free to do whatever I choose. I would like to see that for everyone, especially the six counties, that is why I am on this forum. To discuss these issues with people like you who also care about these same issues.

You are right about the war, and what a waste of lives it is, but you got me to listen to you, and you made me realize a few things about your point of view, so you affected one person in the world today......now if you can do that everyday, think about how important your opinions are and don't ever stop expressing your views.

I will let up on Buchanan, because I respect your opinion, but we've gone way beyond any impact he may have now or in the future. We need to concentrate on up and coming presidential hopefuls and that scares the hell out of me......democrat, independent or republican, I don't like any of them! None of them have the balls needed to get us out of this war, and I'm not impressed with any of their foreign policies. So what now? It's a hard question......

I know I'm spouting off, but I hope you get my point. At least there is communication on this board!

Cheers, Hildy

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Hildy, do you know much about Ron Paul? I've really taken a liking to his political views. Anti-war, pro-Constitution. I know he probably doesn't have a chance in hell, but you can't stop dreaming. I believe that the Constitution is the best protection for all of us Americans regardless of religion, race, political beliefs or economic status.

If we can fix the Federal government, then we can finally focus in on the State and local issues that are best solved on a state-wide and local level rather than federal level. As a famous Irish-American politico once said, "All politics is local"

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Dude...Buchanan is a right-wing extremist. A RELIGIOUS right-wing extremist. If you're so worried about the loss of the Constitution, then vote Libertarian, not Reform Party. Libertarians are pro-Constitution and isolationist as well, but at least they are also socially liberal. They take the best of both sides.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President back in '87. He's got very conservative personal convictions but a strict Constitutionalist. I like that about him. That's why you find folks of all walks of life supporting him. Us Americans love liberty. Liberal and conservative alike. Straight or Gay. Gentile or Jew. The Constitution is something worth saving.

Someone tried to tell me the other day that believing in Ron Paul's anti-war, non-interventionalist, anti-meddling platform on the middle east was letting the Islamists dictate our foreign policy. To which I responded that I'd much rather have the Islamists dictate our foreign policy in the middle east then our domestic policy here in the States (i.e. The Patriot Act)

[Hildy]

Ron Paul is ok, he's better than some of the rest. He has some strong platforms, against abortion, big government, regulation, federal income tax, etc., but most importantly he's against he war in Iraq. He needs to get out there more, though. Not very recognizable as a candidate.....I didn't realize he was a Libertarian, I thought him to be a Republican.

Check this out.......

The best reason to vote for Ron Paul for president is his appearance in the Aaron Russo documentary film "America Freedom to Facism" - it is a must see for anyone who takes their freedom seriously. Available in it's entirety on youtube, or frequently airs on free speech tv. Click the links below to see Ron Paul.

America - Freedom To Facism - Aaron Russo Interview (4 parts) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuDbfClZ6e4)

Ron Paul on The Daily show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87974&title=rep.-ron-paul)

[quirk]

I watched Freedom to Fascism last week and thought that it was excellent. You can download the torrent from www.onebigtorrent.org

[Hildy]

thanks quirk! That's a lot better than watching it in 4 parts......it is quite an extraordinary film. Russo is a brilliant documentary producer......someone told me he was murdered, is that true???

Cheers, Hildy

[quirk]

No he died in August after a long fight with cancer. You can read about it on the website http://www.freedomtofascism.com/. The film proves beyond doubt in my opinion that you are not required to pay federal income tax.

[Finny]

I too am a Ron Paul supporter. For the same reason Blackthorn mentioned. I also like Pat Buchanan and his stances anti-globalization. People get caught up in thinks people WRITE for a President, rather then what the person says. Being a speech writer doesn't mean you believe it, but are paid to write it. What sells you provide.

I give Buchanan leeway due to the fact that others who were against Nation Building and spoke as Republicans ended up throwing their convictions out the window of one day in history.

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have stayed true to American Republicanism. Which is about the Republic and nothing else. If we have a strong America without foreign sway, Ireland could have these possibilities and escape the boot of England.

If America doesn't change, there is no hope for anyone else.

Islamist aren't the enemy if American and others left them alone. Something France, UK and America has not done in the past 200 years. Yet we still think we can "change" it.


I disagree with how we call Iraqi's "terrorist" working with Al-Qaeda. When everybody in their right mind in America would be doing the same thing the Shia and Sunnis are doing in Iraq.

The surge has not worked as Kat has said. From an American stand point and an Irish one. The American Government has given money and weapons to all factions. Sunnis are paid to keep the peace, when the money stops, violence will start up again. This also goes to the Shia. The US is playing the Kurds and they themselves will be hurting the most after this is over. Now with those things happening, how familiar is that to all on this forum? Unionist receiving British money to "keep" the peace, but threaten violence when money is cut off. This goes for Republicans as well, while one group has bowed to the masters. The others have gone silent because the unity has been bought off.

But what will happen when the money stops? What will happen when they get fed up? Violence and more Violence with nothing solved. So to say the Surge in Iraq is working.. is a joke. Just as bad as telling Americans that the "insurgency" was in its las throws in 2004.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Finny you hit the nail on the head in regards to the Islamists. What business is it of us in the West to dictate to the Muslim world what ideas they should hold in high regard? I say we cut deals with Hugo Chavez and Vladmir Putin for oil and get out of the Middle East completely. That includes our foreign aid to Israel.

[Finny]

Well for the US to buy from Chavez or Putin, We'd have to change our policy of hating anything socialist and stop trying to force Chavez into a corner of being Anti-South American Union... that whole globalization issue.

Now Israel needs to be kicked to the curb. Illegal State in a place where they aren't wanted. The only thing I know is just cause God said you needed need to support them doesn't mean you have to do it..specially in this society which nothing is ever followed anymore.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Well for the US to buy from Chavez or Putin, We'd have to change our policy of hating anything socialist and stop trying to force Chavez into a corner of being Anti-South American Union... that whole globalization issue.

Now Israel needs to be kicked to the curb. Illegal State in a place where they aren't wanted. The only thing I know is just cause God said you needed need to support them doesn't mean you have to do it..specially in this society which nothing is ever followed anymore.


That's actually a Christion Zionist belief followed by the likes of John Hagee and many Evangelicals in America and elsewhere. It's heretical by traditional Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christion doctrine which view the Church as the New Israel. However the State of Israel is something I think the Jews and the Arabs have to work out on their own. Realistically there's nothing us removed from the Middle East can do anything about. Especially given the religious nature of claims on that land. Jews, Christians and Muslims have all laid claim to Palestine at one time or another. I don't think that will change anytime soon.

[Finny]

Oh I know where the idea comes from. Its the same group who help fund apartheid in South Africa and lets Ian come preach at their hate-filled churches in the South.

My bigger point is, that just because a book says its the Holy Land and that Jews are "the Chosen" people, doesn't mean its correct. 3 Faiths which teach 3 different things. Anyone of them can be right.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

It is the same group. Ian Paisley would be a hero of there's (and probably is to those who know about him).

I agree with you. I shouldn't be injecting my own religious thought into this, but forgive me sometimes I can't help myself. In traditional Christian doctrine the Christian's are "spiritual Jews" and thus "the chosen people". Israel is no longer a territory but the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore the Jews don't have a legitimate religious claim to the land of Israel. Some may have a legitimate historical claim, but so do the Palestinians both Muslim and Christian.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

To me that's the most reasonable way of looking at it. If people accepted that view then the land could be for the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. There wouldn't have to be bloodshed over such things. However the State of Israel establishing Jewish supremecy over that land and the displacement of Palestinians makes bloodshed inevitable. It doesn't help that many Israelis don't want to give an inch and on the other side many Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the Mediteranean sea. Given that situation there will most likely be war there until the end of time.

[Finny]

To me that's the most reasonable way of looking at it. If people accepted that view then the land could be for the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. There wouldn't have to be bloodshed over such things. However the State of Israel establishing Jewish supremecy over that land and the displacement of Palestinians makes bloodshed inevitable. It doesn't help that many Israelis don't want to give an inch and on the other side many Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the Mediteranean sea. Given that situation there will most likely be war there until the end of time.


You have to look no further then the Brits and the US on that issue.

An International Zone has been discussed for Jerusalem and was suppose to be part of the UN agreement in 1947. We see how well that went. Now they are talking about an International Zone from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea for economical purposes.

Well the Palestinians have more right to drive Israelis into the Med. Just as the Irish have the right to drive the Brits from the 6.

Its Israelis who have to beg and plead not Palestinians and thats something that has gotten lost over the past 50 years.

[ciaranxavier]

i think the next world wars going to be with china no one thinks about those chinese. times proven that its only a matter of time before they try to branch out again and then what......

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

I definitely think the Chinese will be players in the Third World War as will Russia, the United States, the nations of the Middle East and Europe. It will be over oil. The Russians have it, the former Soviet states in Central Asia have it, the Middle East has it and the United States, Europe and China want it. It will be over oil and natural gas. This time I think it will be the Western powers and China who will be the agressors in this coming war.

[Finny]

Blackthorn...

what do you think the war on Terror is? Its "WW3".. its about Oil. Afghanistan was destin to have an Oil pipeline go right trough it. Linking the West to all that oil in former Soviet Union states.

Its why America got involved in 1979.

The Chinese are buying up as much as they can in Africa. One of the reasons Darfur is happening still. Its their money funding the Genocide. Nobody cares, because Nobody wants to mess with China.

[ciaranxavier]

Blackthorn...

what do you think the war on Terror is? Its "WW3".. its about Oil. Afghanistan was destin to have an Oil pipeline go right trough it. Linking the West to all that oil in former Soviet Union states.

Its why America got involved in 1979.

The Chinese are buying up as much as they can in Africa. One of the reasons Darfur is happening still. Its their money funding the Genocide. Nobody cares, because Nobody wants to mess with China.

lol i highly doubt were in WW3 right now.

[Finny]

lol i highly doubt were in WW3 right now.

You think America is just stopping at Iraq? Iran is next and it will **** off the Russians and the Chinese..

The Middle East isn't the only place US troops are involved in Combat Operations against Islam. There is Asia and Africa. :eusa_silenced:

[quirk]

The "war on terror" is being used as a smoke screen for hat is a war for empire and to ensure US global hegemony.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

lol i highly doubt were in WW3 right now.

Maybe not yet, but things definitely seem to be moving in that direction.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

Blackthorn...

what do you think the war on Terror is? Its "WW3".. its about Oil. Afghanistan was destin to have an Oil pipeline go right trough it. Linking the West to all that oil in former Soviet Union states.

Its why America got involved in 1979.

The Chinese are buying up as much as they can in Africa. One of the reasons Darfur is happening still. Its their money funding the Genocide. Nobody cares, because Nobody wants to mess with China.

I agree with Quirk. The war on terror is smoke screen for the American corporate elites to achieve hegemony over Middle Eastern oil. That's not to say that we shouldn't be going after the Islamists who struck us on 9/11 or their financiers in the Persian Gulf. I think Afghanistan has been a just war and is still a winnable in so much as the Afghan people are not Wahhabist Muslims they are traditionally Sufi Muslims who want nothing to do with the likes of the Taliban. Iraq is a completely different story. Iraq is about hegemony over oil and sweetheart contracts for the likes of Halliburton.

If we were serious about the war on terror we would stop supporting the Saudi Royal family and the other oil rich emirs that fund Islamist revolutions throughout the world and open up Wahhabist Mosques and Madrassas to fundamentalize more liberal Muslims in North America, Europe (especially Bosnia and Albania) and Central Asia.

[Finny]

Afghanistan was about oil too. The Taliban wouldn't let American Oil Companies build pipelines during the 90s.

The War on Terror is a joke. Its a simple phrase to get the masses. There is no War on Terror, its a war against people who don't want America in their backyard. It was Idiots who bought the line and ran with it. Making ones with common sense not matter.

This is about Oil, always will be about Oil. If the largest reserve of Oil in the world was found in Ireland, America would be there to try and exploit. So I don't believe the War on Terror. There are plenty of Governments around the world that produce Terror and America does nothing. But if that Country has Oil, best be damn sure America is right there saying something.

[KillinSnakes]

I posted this to show the traditional American conservative view on war. This was the view of the American Republican Party before it was hijacked by corporate owned, globalist, imperialists known as neo-conservatives.


On your list of hijackers, you forgot the damn dirty Jews.*

Patrick Buchanan held up as an example of traditional American conservatives is the msot damning condemnation of US conservatives I've ever read. Maith thú.


*sarcasm.

[KillinSnakes]

The "war on terror" is being used as a smoke screen for hat is a war for empire and to ensure US global hegemony.

Also to appease their own far right base of support, and to smash states that might switch their currency reserves to the euro (as Iraq was in the process of doing).

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

On your list of hijackers, you forgot the damn dirty Jews.*

Patrick Buchanan held up as an example of traditional American conservatives is the msot damning condemnation of US conservatives I've ever read. Maith thú.


*sarcasm.

Would you rather me support a globalist?

[KillinSnakes]

Would you rather me support a globalist?

If that globalist is one that will run his own movement into the ground... then yes.

But I'm more concerned about the neo-cons right flank at this moment.

[Jimmy Blackthorn]

If that globalist is one that will run his own movement into the ground... then yes.

But I'm more concerned about the neo-cons right flank at this moment.

I am too...until Hillary Clinton gets elected. Then I'll have to worry about that bunch and the neo cons.