Presidential Visit?

[Al Agnew]

You guys really should read Zakaria's article, like I said, it is the most comprehensive report on the state of affairs in Iraq and what we can actually accomplish there that I've seen in the media, period. You can find it at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15459024/site/newsweek/

Gonefishin', I think you're still thinking way too simplistically. HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq? Do you honestly think that all the jihadists, or even a significant percentage of them, decided that the best way to hurt America was to go to Iraq and fight the U.S. Army? As Zakaria said, "This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the President really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America?"

In other words, NOTHING we are doing in Iraq is FORCING terrorists to fight us there instead of the U.S. They are doing so either because they don't have the means, or they don't have the will, to attack us on our soil instead. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with KEEPING them from having the means or the will, and if they did have it, our presence in Iraq wouldn't keep them from attacking us here. It's not simple math. The people we are fighting in Iraq are, quite simply, NOT the people who could and would attack us on American soil.

[jjtroutbum]

"HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq?"

[jjtroutbum]

"HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq?"

"HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq?"

Im pretty shure its called a dirt nap them, there leaders, and hopefully any other persons lookin to join up with them.

[gonefishin]

Gonefishin', I think you're still thinking way too simplistically. HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq? Do you honestly think that all the jihadists, or even a significant percentage of them, decided that the best way to hurt America was to go to Iraq and fight the U.S. Army? As Zakaria said, "This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the President really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America?"

Al, think about it for a minute. If Al Queida were to storm Oregon. Would we leave Oregon to Al Queida and go chase Al Queida in Pakastan? We probably would if we had enough military to protect Oregon, protect the rest of the country and chase them in Pakastan. But what if they invaded say Oregon and Texas. Would we have enough mililtary to protect both states, the rest of the country and to send to Pakastan? What if they hit 3 or 4 states? Would we have enough? The point is that at some point we would be so busy protecting our home front that we would not have time to go to Pakastan. So the problem is really simple if the terrorists busy enough in Afganastan, Iraq and elsewhere they won't have enough military capital to attack us in any meaningful manner here on our own soil. The only way to beat these people is to hold em by the nose while kicking them in the backside.

The Dems and the Press know what I am saying is true. They talked a good game of cut and run to gain political power. The Dems are in control now and the press is elated. Now we get to see if they practice what they preach or if they stay and finish the job. I bet they finish because they know they cant cut and run from these people and keep our country safe.

[LostMyWife]

What were these false religions and what exactly were the people doing?

Thanks Wayne. and Ron.

In the Old Testament, any religion other that that of Abraham, (Jewish), was considered a false religion or the worshiping of false Gods. That is my paraphrase, not the Bibles. The wars/battles that Israel fought with the surrounding countries, i.e. the Pharaoh of Egypt, Elijah and the Prophets Of Baal, (reference First Kings, Chapter 18 verses 1 thru 40). Elijah took them to the Kishon Valley and killed them all. Think battle of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, Gods treatment of David's son after his afair with Bathsheba. Bottom line is that you can find examples of some very harsh treatment in most works of religion. The Quran does not have the corner on the market for punishment.

Again, it was not my intent to defend, support or build up the Muslin faith.

[Al Agnew]

Nope, gonefishin', still don't buy it. Al Qaeda doesn't give a hoot about Iraq. Few if any al Qaeda terrorists that we know of came from Iraq. Iraq was not a base for al Qaeda during Saddam's reign. Protecting Iraq, or running us out of there, is not in the stated goals of bin Laden and al Qaeda. In your example, we would protect Oregon because it's part of our country. Al Qaeda and the jihadists don't have a country, they have a perverted religion to which they are loyal. We would protect Oregon because it's part of America. They care about Iraq only to the extent that it's part of the whole Moslem "empire" they dream about, and they for sure don't care about the Iraqis.

Where I think you're making a mistake is in equating the people who are trying their darnedest to blow up American soldiers to international terrorists. There are a few "outsiders" who are involved in Iraq, but mostly it's the Sunni minority and a portion of the Shias who want us out of there so bad they are trying to kill us. That's the key...THEY are Iraqis, and they want us out of Iraq. (The Sunnis also want to kill as many Shia as possible, especially those that are in the police or government, because they are afraid the Shia will kill THEM.) If we WERE driven out of Iraq, why would they come over here and keep killing us? They are not al Qaeda, and that's not their goal. The only case you can make is that if we were run out of Iraq, it's quite possible that the country would eventually become a base for international terrorists, as Afghanistan was. (And as a few other countries still are.)

[Wayne SW/MO]

Thats all well and good Al when Fareed puts blinders on and takes a look at the situation from present only. At this point in time he's probably right that much of Al Qaeda has left, but they have left feet first and thats something to note.

What Farred is ignoring is that Al Qaeda has been gutted by their attraction to Afghanistan and Iraq. Saudi Arabia is a big contributer to the insurgency in Iraq, and thats the heart and sole of Al Qaeda.

I have to ask, what are his sources?

[gonefishin]

Nope, gonefishin', still don't buy it. Al Qaeda doesn't give a hoot about Iraq. Few if any al Qaeda terrorists that we know of came from Iraq. Iraq was not a base for al Qaeda during Saddam's reign. Protecting Iraq, or running us out of there, is not in the stated goals of bin Laden and al Qaeda. In your example, we would protect Oregon because it's part of our country. Al Qaeda and the jihadists don't have a country, they have a perverted religion to which they are loyal. We would protect Oregon because it's part of America. They care about Iraq only to the extent that it's part of the whole Moslem "empire" they dream about, and they for sure don't care about the Iraqis.

I'll say one more thing on the subject then give up. You and the people you quote sound like the guys who advised Roosevelt against the Doolittle raid. They said it was unnecessary, risky and non-productive. Its a good thing that Roosevelt understood that that little raid would make Japan keep some of their troops in reserve at home so they would have less to throw against the US and it is a good thing that there are some people in this country who understand that we have to take this war to the terrorists if we want to put them out of business and secure our country.

I know you dont believe this so we will let history decide. The Dems gained power by scaring the public and talking a cut and run policy. They say they would have us run scared from the terrorists but I bet when it comes down to it they don't cut and run because while they talk a good game they know that cutting and running would be counter-productive to the security of this country. Check out Hilary some time. She HATES Bush yet, she supported the war in Iraq and avoids supporting the cut and run advocates. Why? Becuase she understands it is a central front on the war on terror.

[jeff]

Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden in particular, have never had any affection for Iraq. Bin Laden's reasoning for his first declaration of jihad against America was for our using of Saudi Arabia as a base for the first gulf war. He even offered to lead a Muslim force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. He thought the war against Saddam should be lead by Muslim's, not by us. Of course, noone even considered his offer, because even then we knew he shouldn't be trusted. After the war, Bin Laden got some phony cleric (only clerics can declare jihad) and had a press conference declaring the jihad.

PS - I know 3 muslims and they aren't violent at all, and in a conversation with one of them, he was concerned that Christianity was a violent faith. From the Crusades to the annihilation of Native Americans, the name of God has been used to justify all kinds of horrible things. Christianity even has it's own terrorists, the abortion clinic bombers of the 80's and 90's, the Oklahoma City bombers had ties to a few radical religious groups, and Christian Identity bomber Eric Rudolph. All religions (like all groups) have bad members that aren't representative of the faith in general.

[Brian Sloss]

Cripple caddis,

You are right when you point that the fighting continue and that it has been going on for eons. They will in-fight for the rest of my lifetime and probably for generations to come. Whether we are there or not, the fighting will continue.

I was raised christian and can't say I've studied the Quran. That being said, I have met a Muslim or two, and worked with one about 10 years ago. He would not have advocated the 911 tragedy or any other terrorist activity. He is Iranian and grew up in MO and desperately wanted peace in the middle east as he still had family in Iran. My point is he never advocated killing anyone. His friends included christians, in fact most of his friends came from a christian tradition.

Now my only point was that when you start generalizing about the intentions and beliefs of an entire race or religion, you start down a slippery slope that I refuse to go down. I would not do so when others would generalize about christians, jews, blacks, whites, hindus or anybody. There are numerous denominations in Christianity and that is because there are numerous ways of looking at the Bible. If there were only one perspective on the Bible, there would not be so much disagreement on the messages found within. During the Civil War, the Bible was claimed by both sides. One side owned slaves and yet claimed the Bible was on their side. My point is that you can twist anything to meet your needs if you are fantical enough. And though I have not read the Quran and don't imagine I will, I suspect that is what is being done. It is probably being twisted to fit fantical needs to carry out out horrific deeds. That is what fantics do and have been doing since recorded history. People who know much more about the Quran seem to say this as well. That is all I have to say on the subject. I don't believe in stereotyping.