Good for you! My sentiments exactly. What ignorance. nm

• Does anyone else not find it totally ironic that our next president's sm - nm
  • Calypso Louie Loves Hussain Obama - Borders, Language, & Culture Girl
    • oh brother !!!!!!!! - mt
      • Of course he denounces it.... - Observer
    • Exactly! I don't give a darn WHAT his middle name is... - Observer
      • obama is also aligned with Raila Ondinga in Kenya - 1st cousin who is causing in Kenya....sm
  • I have the answer to our presidential woes... - was a happy dem
  • What is ironic - Taiga
  • Are you for real - anon
    • Good for you! My sentiments exactly. What ignorance. nm - oldtimer
    • I agree, take the focus off of middle name, etc. - Obama Fan
    • Also totally agree - sm - sammypot
  • I SO agree and we are not of the same faith - because Chronicles I do not think....sm
    • Don't ya'll pay attention? The Popes (past and present) had already decided this. - JS
      • Not everyone follows what the pope thinks - ExMQMT
        • I'm pretty sure that Pope post was tongue in cheek. - nm
    • I'm dead wrong, Chronicles IS in my Bible.... - because Chronicles I do not think....sm
  • Why bother? - -Outta Here
    • I agree - anon
    • Not deep, issue-based political discourse, is it? - Just Sayin'
  • I have my shield up so go ahead FLAME AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - nm
    • I was wondering if you would be reading the posts - mt

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Some would see this as political from the get-go.  They would read this and dismiss it saying, oh those stupid Republicans.  It has not penetrated some of their conscious or subconscious thinking that there really is more to this than politics.  The stakes are more than high.  Historically, Muslims spread Islam barbarically and without mercy and were ony stopped from taking Europe by the Crusades.  They are ready to spread again, only this time, it is the United States they have their eyes on.  I found this article that I believe illustrates not only what will happen, but has a good understanding of what is happening now.

Preventing a Premature Exit From Iraq
By Ed Feulner
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 19, 2006

BAGHDAD (Jan. 21, 2009) -- Iraq's bloody civil war worsened today, when 10,000 heavily armed troops from the Shiite state of Shiastan pushed north from Najaf and Rumaythah. The attack threatened to trap three battalions of U.S.-backed Sunnis in the region.

The latest round of fighting has triggered a new wave of refugees into Kuwait and Jordan, the United Nations reported today. Millions of Iraqis have fled the country since American troops pulled out in 2006, a controversial withdrawal that al Qaeda celebrates as a watershed victory.

Word of today's offensive pushed crude oil prices to $210 per barrel, a new record, certain to cause problems for the newly inaugurated American president ...

All right, enough with the doom and gloom. The preceding paragraphs are fiction, but they reflect what's likely to happen if the United States pulls out of Iraq before the country is stabilized and able to function on its own. Unfortunately, some of our politicians want to do exactly that.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote in a letter both signed in August. Even if our task there remains unfinished?

As President Bush put it on Oct. 11, when you pull out before the job is done, that's cut and run as far as I'm concerned. And that's cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned.

Heritage Foundation experts James Carafano and James Phillips explained in a recent paper what's likely to happen if we withdraw quickly. Such a shortsighted U.S. policy would be a severe blow to the Iraqi security situation, Iraqi oil exports, U.S. allies in the region, the global war against terrorism and the future of all Iraqis, they write.

If we leave now, we'd leave the Iraqi army (with all its heavy weapons) up for grabs. That's likely to spark a civil war, as soldiers align themselves into religious and regional militias.

Under that scenario, we can expect Iran -- already a regional power -- to support the Shiite Muslims in the south, a move that would give Tehran control of most of Iraq's oil. Not that this would necessarily keep the oil flowing; as the civil war escalated, guerrillas would cut pipelines and blow up oil wells.

Right now, Iraq produces 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and the country's government aims to increase that to 2.7 MBD by year's end. If production is disrupted, though, worldwide prices would skyrocket.

If we cut and run, Iraqi civilians would be the biggest losers. Millions would flee the starvation, disease and destruction that civil war brings. Meanwhile, al Qaeda would tout its role in forcing the U.S. out, providing a huge recruiting boom for the terrorist group.

This doesn't mean we should stay indefinitely. As they say, there are only two exit strategies from any war: A country can win and go home, or it can lose and go home. Either way, all our troops eventually will exit Iraq. What really matters is what they leave behind.

We've made progress in Iraq, and we'll continue to do so. Many of al Qaeda's senior leaders have been killed or captured and the group's popularity among the Iraqis is low. We need to keep training Iraqi forces and preparing them to stand on their own.

In the long run, only Iraqis can assure the success of Iraq. But if, in the short run, we cut and run, we guarantee failure -- for them and for us. We can avoid the bleak future outlined above. But we must steel our resolve to get the job done right.

(Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.

I just love it when people try to wallow around in righteous, indignant self pity.  If you're so concerned about the plight of the Jewish people, why don't you go and help out your grandmother? 

Ask yourself this question.  Since Great Britian and the UN thought so highly of Jews as to actually declare them a separate nation, why didn't they create that nation in Europe?  My guess is that there were 2 reasons.  Number one would have to be the *not in my backyard phenomenon.*  The other was simply as a controlling interest in the region.  The reality is that Britian didn't give a rat's butt about the Jews.  They just picked the most susceptible minds (at the time) to carry out their plans.  They sold the idea of backing Isreal through religion and still do, just like the US does.  One big clue to this is exactly how much we actually back Israel.  We have brought them up to the level of nukes while they are still just fighting against homemade bombs.  We (the US) look the other way when Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians, but will run a prime time special if 2 (not 200, just 2) Israelis are killed.  Yeah, that's a fair fight.  We back other leaders in the middle east, but only to a point (Saddam for example).  Once they get to a point where they may actually become a threat to Israel (a holding interest for the west) we always manage to call them a threat for some other reason and level the playing field. 

I really wish people would look at the big picture on this one.  From a political standpoint, Israel is nothing more than a bishop in a chess game.

by ill-informed punkinheads who pretend to know something about our political situation. Just spewing the same worn out talking points that don't amount to squat.

As a Christian, I would appreciate it if people would leave this type of subject out of our children's education.  It is not unreasonable to ask since we have given up God and prayer in the schools to accommodate those who do not believe. 

There are some people who will ridicule the act as well as the person as you can clearly see when we get on the subject of homosexuality.  But you cannot group all of us into this category.  I do not agree with that lifestyle but having no reason to treat them poorly.  That is what I want to teach my children.  We may not agree but we cannot be mean to them. 

However, I cannot stand by and allow the teaching that homosexuality is okay.  It is too controversial of a topic for that to be taught in schools.....just like religion.  I can teach my children acceptance of people without teaching acceptance of a lifestyle we don't agree with and I would appreciate it if schools wouldn't undermine my authority on that subject. 

You don't see me going around forcing religion on children who I know has parents who don't believe in God and don't want their kids hearing about God.

Just take a look at this administration. 

Give up on trying to reason with this MT person.  When she still doesn't get it - even when her actual words are presented to her - this is not a normal mind.