Iraq War Consequences..........

[rockbilly]

I trust that you can read it with an open mind. This guy takes shots at both sides and IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT ... But an INDEPENDENT!

This is long, but absolutely worth reading. It is scary because it is so true. I think many of us (including me) have a hard time understanding everything that goes on in the Middle East and this war that we are fighting, but this explains it very well. I apologize if this offends anyone.  If this doesn't put us on our knees praying for our Nation, What will??
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 
 
  
Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East problems,  this one is from the guy who had his
Finger on the nuclear trigger for three years as head of our Defense and response complex buried under Cheyenne
Mountain at Colorado Springs . He was the only person who could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting
President of a missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond. No political or civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to day military actions around the World.   Everyone should find quiet time to read this.

As far as I am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should go and the consequences of not doing so are well thought out.
  
John R. (Jack) Farrington Major General, USAF (Retired)
 
 
Middle East Imperative
 
BY: JIM CASH, Brig.  Gen., USAF, Ret.
 
 
I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses.  Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.
 
Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond..   Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover.  But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.
 
There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West.  Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms.  They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support.  That answer is simple.  They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.
 
The other six, Afghanistan , Iraq , Iran , Syria , North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift.  Now, let's look more closely.  
 
Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran .  We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat.
 
North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off.  They are starving.  That leaves Syria and Iran.
Syria is like a frightened puppy.  Without the support of Ira n they will join the stronger side.  So where does that leave us?  Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.
  
In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years. My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada .  If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond.  
 
I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months.  They killed hundreds of thousand of their people.  Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.
 
At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west.  Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat.  Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations.  Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.
 
Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East  turns their support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out?  It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about.  Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to this country at any price.  I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.  
 
Yes, it is about oil.  The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now.  It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days". The bottom line here is simple.  If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.
 
One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community.  It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.
 
I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney.  They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won.  Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror.  You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk.com .
 
On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war.  They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.
 
You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war.  If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age.  It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails.  I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere..  The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!
 
Now, my last comments will get to the nerve.  They will be on politics.. I am not a Republican.  And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those farther to the right.  I am a conservative who totally supports the Constitution of this country.  The only difference between the United States and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing South American governments, is our US Constitution..
 
This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the  world has ever known, but it is vulnerable.  It would take so little to  change it through economic upheaval..  There was a time when politicians could disagree, but still work together.  We are past that time, and that is the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.
 
I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time.  The Republicans hated the Clinton 's and now the Democrats hate Bush.  So, both parties are putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of being opposed.  
 
JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?
  
In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of their terms.  And, let me assure you that times were best under the Republicans.
 
Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military. And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation.  You can choose to listen to enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the true fools in Hollywood if you like.  If you do, your conclusions will be totally wrong.  
 
The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can to denounce those people is simple.  THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST  FOR POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY.  I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy fine.
 
Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died). She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.
 
This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is another indication of a Republic about to fall.  All Democrats, along with the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this Republic.  However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided.  I am afraid, however, that we are going in the opposite direction.  
 
If we elect Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled congress, and they carry through with allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms of what we view as the good life in the USA .
 
Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of course not.  They just do no t understand the importance of total victory in that region.
 
Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American people why we are there, and why we MUST win.  By the way, it is not a war.  The war was won four years ago.  It is martial law that is under attack by Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.
 
So, what do I believe?  What is the bottom line?  I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry,  anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime.  Our educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to be taken in by this group.  George Bush has done the best he can with the disabi lities that he possesses.
 
A President must communicate with the people.  And, I would tell you that Desert Storm spoiled the people.  Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought with no casualties and won in very short periods of time.  I remember feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military.  
 
To win wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground, soldiers are going to die.  A President must make the war decision wisely, and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.  However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.
 
Jimmy L.  Cash, Brig.  Gen., USAF, Ret.
Lakeside , Montana 59922
 

[deltecs]

The General has concisely expressed my feeble attempts to convey the same conclusions I've posted elsewhere on GBO.  From reducing our dependency on oil, partisan politics in Congress, and reluctance to impeach or prosecute Congressional members for violation of law or oath of office.  With the proposed solutions by the 2 leading Democrats on economic reform (give away programs and higher taxes), restrictions or prohibition of firearms in the hands of the individual, the added costs of illegal immigration integration, all these are going to compound our problems, if elected.  If we cannot afford to stop our military action and expenses as the General has outlined, then with the addition of fuel and costs skyrocketing for products, very much more and excessive foreign support with US dollars, increased national debt due dollar devaluation, how can we afford to have either Obama or Clinton in the White House? 

[Leatherstocking]

Wow. that was worth reading all the way through. And I think he makes a lot of sense. I guess the only thing I am left wondering though, is whether we should have ever gone into Iraq in the first place. If I understand his logic, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq and let Iraq and Iran remain preoccupied with each other so that the extremists would leave us alone. I just dunno.

[deltecs]

Wow. that was worth reading all the way through. And I think he makes a lot of sense. I guess the only thing I am left wondering though, is whether we should have ever gone into Iraq in the first place. If I understand his logic, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq and let Iraq and Iran remain preoccupied with each other so that the extremists would leave us alone. I just dunno.

Under Clinton, we stayed out of Iraq and Iran.  Look what happened to the Cole, our embassies in Africa and 9/11.  How does staying out assist us here at home or our soveriegnty abroad?   The religious extremists are going to go after any infidels or governments that disagree with their religious tenet.  That is fact and no getting away from it.  So let's deal with it. 

[gypsyman]

I agree with Deltecs. It's easier to fight one bad guy at a time, than to try and defeat them after they have teamed up. And sooner or later, the Muslim extremists were bound to band together. At least at this point and time, we're keeping them from getting a strong foothold in any one country. Iran is the one we have to worry about now. They have a leader that can, and probably will go to extremes for his cause.  gypsyman

[Leatherstocking]

Under Clinton, we stayed out of Iraq and Iran.  Look what happened to the Cole, our embassies in Africa and 9/11.  How does staying out assist us here at home or our soveriegnty abroad?   The religious extremists are going to go after any infidels or governments that disagree with their religious tenet.  That is fact and no getting away from it.  So let's deal with it. 
[/quote]

Agreed - but for every ONE that we deal with, TWO are born, or created by our efforts when our efforts are misplaced. I think it is critical that we direct our efforts in the right place or we will create more animosity toward us than ever existed before, and I fear that the result will just be more terrorism. I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but the words of this general confirmed it for me. Had we left Iraq alone, they (Iraq and Iran) would still be keeping each other neutralized. Now that we have brought Iraq to its knees, we have destabilized the region more than it ever was. Read his commentary again. That is what he is saying. The events you mentioned are tragedies - there is no doubt about that. But those things were going on LONG before Clinton took office.

[deltecs]

Under Clinton, we stayed out of Iraq and Iran.  Look what happened to the Cole, our embassies in Africa and 9/11.  How does staying out assist us here at home or our soveriegnty abroad?   The religious extremists are going to go after any infidels or governments that disagree with their religious tenet.  That is fact and no getting away from it.  So let's deal with it. 

  Agreed - but for every ONE that we deal with, TWO are born, or created by our efforts when our efforts are misplaced. I think it is critical that we direct our efforts in the right place or we will create more animosity toward us than ever existed before, and I fear that the result will just be more terrorism. I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but the words of this general confirmed it for me. Had we left Iraq alone, they (Iraq and Iran) would still be keeping each other neutralized. Now that we have brought Iraq to its knees, we have destabilized the region more than it ever was. Read his commentary again. That is what he is saying. The events you mentioned are tragedies - there is no doubt about that. But those things were going on LONG before Clinton took office.

The decision to go into Iraq, I'm sure was not made lightly or in retaliation of 9/11 directly.  Saddam had refused to comply with the peace terms set during the first Gulf war.  His non compliance was aggravating the terrorist problems due to his previous and intentional use of chemical weapons.  The US could not afford this potential attack in light of Saddams refusal to comply with agreed peace terms.  In addition, we already knew Iran was and continued to be threat.  With the invasion of Afghanistan and an invasion of Iraq would effectively isolate Iran from its neighbors geopolitically.  This would effectively reduce Iran's potential to incite further jihad against Americans.  We are there now, Saddams regime is ended, and now we must stay in the region to assist in the new governments stability, which will further reduce tension in the surrounding area.  At least that is my take on it.

[Leatherstocking]

I agree that we must now stay the course in Iraq. Pulling out in a hurry would further destabilize the region. However, I don't think our continued presence will reduce tensions. There has been, and always will be tension in that region, particularly in the last 100 years as the world has become oil dependent. Perhaps our best hope is to use up all that mideast oil as quickly as possible. Then there won't be anything to fight about and the islamic extremists will have had their steady stream of income dried up and won't be able to terrorize the world. Hmm, maybe I'm on to something. Suddenly I feel good about driving my pick up truck!!

[McLernon]

The Tar Sands in western Canada is the most extensive oil deposit in the world except for Saudi Arabia and it is being developed as fast as possible to reduce the U.S. and our dependence on the middle east. It is in fact the U.S.A,'s most secure oil supply after domestic production.

Canada does not have a large military but the men and women that are fighting and dying along side Ameicans and the British  in Afganistan are our very best. If you have every read "Hatred's Kingdom" you will know that U.S. involvment in the middle east is a must and to the extent that we can, Canada has to support this effort with 'boots on the ground'.

I am a Liberal(centrist in Canada) but I know we have international commitments such as NATO and the U.N. that we must actively support. To this end we are now building up our military so that we can do our share.

Mc

[deltecs]

The Tar Sands in western Canada is the most extensive oil deposit in the world except for Saudi Arabia and it is being developed as fast as possible to reduce the U.S. and our dependence on the middle east. It is in fact the U.S.A,'s most secure oil supply after domestic production.

Canada does not have a large military but the men and women that are fighting and dying along side Ameicans and the British  in Afganistan are our very best. If you have every read "Hatred's Kingdom" you will know that U.S. involvment in the middle east is a must and to the extent that we can, Canada has to support this effort with 'boots on the ground'.

I am a Liberal(centrist in Canada) but I know we have international commitments such as NATO and the U.N. that we must actively support. To this end we are now building up our military so that we can do our share.

Mc

It is obvious that Canada and the US have different political parties and differences with our individual governments and that can strain some relationships.  However, our fairly united front on most world issues make us good neighbors generally.  My family and I rescued a couple of kayak boaters one spring, who had swamped their boats and in the process, getting extremely wet.  Since it was cold, they were in sever hypothermic condition.  Once we got them stabilized and talking, they told us they were from Norway and Sweden.  During the conversation one said that Norway and Sweden were unique, in that they shared the longest UNSECURED border in the world.  I thought a minute and said I thought they were wrong.  Canada and the US share the longest UNSECURED border in the world.  There are Custom entry points, but no where along the border between us do we have fences.  If fences make good neighbors, what does that say if we get along well with our neighbors without one.  Alaska has a proposal to construct a gas pipeline from our natural gas reserves to mid west US, through Canada.  I for one have no problem with this route.  It alleviates dependency on oil, and buys time for alternative energy solutions to be constructed in both countries.  Thanks for being a good neighbor Canada.

[mitchell]

you know one thing that most people don't get about iraq??? it almost over there not much fight left , in the war so far we have lost under 4000 people , in WWII we lost more then that on D-day, this is a good war to fight in . i don't ever think about if i'm coming home its just when i'm coming home

in WWII we sent a lot of men and boys over seas to died in a different country because it was the right thing to do . and if you read your history the japs were the ones the bombed us and we went ahead and fucked Germany along the way too (yes i know Germany declared war on us) its the same thing now , yes i know iraq and iran didn't do the 9-11 bombing but the MF'ers were killing here everyday did and if we don't kill the them here mark my words will be killing them in our own back yards. now i would much rather spend 15 month over here away from my wife and daughter (BTW 3 weeks left) then have to go back home and have my wife watch me kill them or even get killed herself .


were not fighting a war against iraq . were just fighting the people that come here from all these other F'ed up countries around here . take your pick , in the sand or in your back yard. with your friend by your side or your children by your side .this Nov i'm voting for whoever wants to stay here. even if it means i have to come back

[deltecs]

Thanks for your service and I agree, we must stay and finish it.  I too am voting for the man who wants to finish the job. 

[magooch]

Before G. W. Bush became President, who was it that was hollering the loudest about how Saddam had to be taken out.  That's right, it was the Dumbycrats and Bubba himself was one of the loudest.  Right along with him were Teddy Kennedy, Rockafeller, Byden, and on and on.  Even Algore thought it was imperative that Saddam be taken down.  They called it regime change.  Apparently they thought they could talk him into leaving.

Does no one remember how Hellery and her spouse both stated in front of television cameras that they thought we were doing the right thing as long as the war was going gang busters in its initial stages.  And don't you remember how Mr. Clinton said he thought that George Bush was doing exactly the right thing and he would have done the same if he were still President.

Well, there's one big difference between the loudmouth Dumbycrats and George Bush; the liberals are all noise and no action, President Bush does what he says he's going to do and then stands behind it.  I may not agree with how he chose to go about it, but I'm not going to be like a Dumbycrat and call him every name in the book and then act like they never said any of the things they said when they had the responsibility of protecting this country.

[deltecs]

To those post above, right on.  The popularity of the Iraq war is strictly emotional.  The Democrats had the same info that Bush did, said they would do the same thing in his shoes, and now everyone wants on the political correct bandwagon.  If Saddam needed removed in Clintons administration, why didn't he need removed in Bush's?  Media and Cindy Sheehan and liberal Democrats spouting anything to reduce Bush popularity that minimizes Slick Willy's perjury and damage to the Democratic party perception.  TM, that's the conspiracy, so Democrats can get elected for its communistic agenda. 

[rockbilly]

Mitchell, As a retried career military member I agree with you, better on their soil than on ours!   

God bless you and your family, I pray for your safe return, and hope we can establish a reasonable peace in that part of the world without giving the country to Iran.