No more "Global War on Terror" Democrat House Committee Decrees!

"John Rennie" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Earl Evleth wrote (but of course Piggy@Yahoo wrote for him):
Golly! I guess the Democrats will just declare victory and order the
troops home, just like Vietnam

And this would be a bad thing why?

Because, having defined the objective, proclaimed that not achieving
that objective would be a disaster for Western society, and then not
achieving that objective, would be a disaster.

Wahabist fanatics have taken Iraq as their battleground.

If they win there then they won't stop.

Saudi religious intolerance will spread.

I have no desire to live in a world where religious fanatics financed by
the Saudi royal family have more influence than they already have.

It seems to have escaped your notice that this insane war is being fought
in Iraq not Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 who were responsible for 9/11
came from.
It is there that Wahabism was born and is taught in all their schools.
So to put it at its mildest Iraq was not and is not the place to confront
Islam fundamentalism.


I'm afraid the USA picked the battlefield, not me...

They picked a battlefield far more convenient to their enemies than for
themselves.

However, now they've picked the battlefield they now have to fight the war.

Saying 'No thanks, we're off now' is defeat by anyone's standards.

Defeat in Iraq just allows the enemy to move onto your territory.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
On 4/04/07 20:55, in article , "William
Black" wrote:


"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Earl Evleth wrote (but of course Piggy@Yahoo wrote for him):
Golly! I guess the Democrats will just declare victory and order the
troops home, just like Vietnam

And this would be a bad thing why?

Because, having defined the objective, proclaimed that not achieving
that
objective would be a disaster for Western society, and then not achieving
that objective, would be a disaster.

In what way?

Wahabist fanatics have taken Iraq as their battleground.

And others too. There are several disputes. The first is the foreign
presence in Iraq. Many iraqis don't want that.

True, but irrelevant.


Another dispute is confessional, between the Shi'ites and Sunnites
and is related to the prior power dominance by the minority
group the Sunnites.

True, but also irrelevant...

By "Wahabist fanatics" you mean mostly Al Qaeda, I supposed. Howver
support for the Sunnites is broader than that.

Your assumption is incorect.

al Quaida is an invention of the US intelligence community. The Wahabist
reactionaries are far more dangerous because they're backed by the House of
Saud.

And, naturally there are the nationalist ambitions of the Kurds.

Irrelevant. The Kurds will not be allowed a sovreign state.

So into this soup, the United States has stumbled.

Stumbled!

They walked in with their eyes wide open.

If they win there then they won't stop.

Where can they go, effectively? Here is France I see no real way
that Islam can prevent its people following a more secular pathway,
Islam is actually threatened in Europe, its followers are falling
away.

In the UK as well.

However the rate of conversion to Islam is higher than it has ever been in
Europe as well.

Do you know any Moslems? Did you talk with Moslem today.

I live in Bombay for several months of the year. I know many Moslems.

And yes, I did speak with a Mosdlem today, but I'm in the UK at the
moment.

I did, several. Europe will not fall under the yoke of Islam.
I suspect in the long run, neither will Iraq but I am not
sure. Afghanistan is another story, as is Pakistan. Whatever
happens, the United States will be part of the problem and not
part of the solution. It already is the major problem.

All that is interesting but once again irrelevant.

The defeat of the USA by a partially Wahabist insurgency in Iraq will
certainly result in demands from the Wahabist leadership in Saudi Arabia for
some sort of expansion and they know that violence works.

The Saudi royal family will have little choice but to finance such an
expansion in exactly the same way that the Pakistani government has little
choice but backing terrorism because otherwise they'll be overthrown and
replaced by a theocracy.

The only thing stopping this is the US desire to confront them in Iraq.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Here we go again, donna evleth + earl evleth and next parrot evleth ??
Duh

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On 4/04/07 20:55, in article , "William
Black" wrote:


"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Earl Evleth wrote (but of course Piggy@Yahoo wrote for him):
Golly! I guess the Democrats will just declare victory and order the
troops home, just like Vietnam

And this would be a bad thing why?

Because, having defined the objective, proclaimed that not achieving
that
objective would be a disaster for Western society, and then not achieving
that objective, would be a disaster.

In what way?

Wahabist fanatics have taken Iraq as their battleground.

And others too. There are several disputes. The first is the foreign
presence in Iraq. Many iraqis don't want that.

Another dispute is confessional, between the Shi'ites and Sunnites
and is related to the prior power dominance by the minority
group the Sunnites.

By "Wahabist fanatics" you mean mostly Al Qaeda, I supposed. Howver
support for the Sunnites is broader than that.

And, naturally there are the nationalist ambitions of the Kurds.

So into this soup, the United States has stumbled.

If they win there then they won't stop.

Where can they go, effectively? Here is France I see no real way
that Islam can prevent its people following a more secular pathway,
Islam is actually threatened in Europe, its followers are falling
away.

Do you know any Moslems? Did you talk with Moslem today.

I did, several. Europe will not fall under the yoke of Islam.
I suspect in the long run, neither will Iraq but I am not
sure. Afghanistan is another story, as is Pakistan. Whatever
happens, the United States will be part of the problem and not
part of the solution. It already is the major problem.

Make credence recognised that on Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:00:10 +0100,
"William Black" has scripted:


"John Rennie" wrote in message
m...

It seems to have escaped your notice that this insane war is being fought
in Iraq not Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 who were responsible for 9/11
came from.
It is there that Wahabism was born and is taught in all their schools.
So to put it at its mildest Iraq was not and is not the place to confront
Islam fundamentalism.


I'm afraid the USA picked the battlefield, not me...

They picked a battlefield far more convenient to their enemies than for
themselves.

However, now they've picked the battlefield they now have to fight the war.

Saying 'No thanks, we're off now' is defeat by anyone's standards.

Defeat in Iraq just allows the enemy to move onto your territory.

At some point they will have to, as there is no winning in Iraq now -
of that I think we can all agree.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Rennie wrote:

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Earl Evleth wrote (but of course Piggy@Yahoo wrote for him):

Golly! I guess the Democrats will just declare victory and order the
troops home, just like Vietnam

And this would be a bad thing why?

Because, having defined the objective, proclaimed that not achieving
that objective would be a disaster for Western society, and then not
achieving that objective, would be a disaster.

Wahabist fanatics have taken Iraq as their battleground.

If they win there then they won't stop.

Saudi religious intolerance will spread.

I have no desire to live in a world where religious fanatics financed by
the Saudi royal family have more influence than they already have.


It seems to have escaped your notice that this insane war is being fought in
Iraq not Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 who were responsible for 9/11 came
from.
It is there that Wahabism was born and is taught in all their schools. So
to put it at its mildest Iraq was not and is not the place to confront Islam
fundamentalism.

Particularly when before that moron in the White House
forced our troops to attack it, the Iraqi government was
secular, NOT Muslim fundamentalist! (One of the few
non-theocracies in the Middle East.) No one can pretend
Sadam was an enlightened, benign ruler, but is what Iraq has
now any improvement? Not for Iraqis, and not for the rest
of the world, either.