-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I would contend it matters not what President Obama does. The various jihadist factions are all ready emboldened enough. You realy think they care much what the Americans think? Nay, for they are trying to establish The Caliphate.
As for funding them, aye, this is woeful policy indeed. Only problem here is all the senior level GOP members and Bush as well are responsible for the same thing. In fact Senator McCain is more responsible than Obama as this is much of his idea to begin with and he is the one going and meeting with their leaders. Seems to me if we are going to judge the political leadership on this issue alone then we are forced to concede that both Parties have fallen and failed our nation and should be removed post-haste.
As for funding them, aye, this is woeful policy indeed. Only problem here is all the senior level GOP members and Bush as well are responsible for the same thing. In fact Senator McCain is more responsible than Obama as this is much of his idea to begin with and he is the one going and meeting with their leaders. Seems to me if we are going to judge the political leadership on this issue alone then we are forced to concede that both Parties have fallen and failed our nation and should be removed post-haste.
1
One look at sissy Obama would embolden any terrorist I would think, I mean how wouldn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26prexy.html?_r=0
Last edited:
1
One look at sissy Obama would embolden any terrorist I would think, I mean how wouldn't it?
Or six months after a terrorist murders 3000 of your citizens, to be caught saying you don't think much about that guy or spend much time on, saying that on world wide TV, that might embolden terrorists.
[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o[/video]
Holding hands on your own ranch with the leader of a nation that condones oppressing women and murdering Christians, telling the entire world you don't spend time catching the guy who murdered 3000 of your people, dancing in Africa while your troops are dying, after you've said you aren't thinking much about public enemy #1....<--Me thinks that might embolden a terrorist or two...
I say this with confidence and assurance, as I am a Soldier. I'm a Combat Infantryman who is willing to fight for a just cause be it for my own people or for an oppressed people. So long as the cause is just we cannot simply turn our backs and pretend as if an evil is not being perpetrated against individuals whom are too weak to stand up and defend themselves.
We're talking about a territory that has been dominated by dictators and radical Islam... so of course they are terrified when Al Qaeda begins seizing more territories, and advances on their capital city.
Also, it's quite a bold and brazen statement to refer to the Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq as a group of "rag tag" militants. That's a grave underestimation of our enemies true capabilities. The assumption you have made in calling them rag tag militants, is the same assumption our leaders made when we first landed our birds in Baghdad and Kandahar, and that kind of thinking cost the lives of many brave men and women.
When the enemy does not wear a uniform it is difficult to tell who the civilians are versus the actual enemy we are tasked with dispatching. This adheres to a principle Sun Tzu establishes in the Art of War, all war is based on deception. The enemy, by not wearing a uniform makes it harder for us to identify them. This makes guerrilla warfare an extremely viable tactic as an option for our enemy, as the rules of engagement state we cannot fire upon anyone unless we are fired upon first, or if an attack is imminent. (On a side note... we really need to pay no attention to the geneva convention on that point. An identifiable threat does not need to fire a weapon at us to be confirmed as a threat.)
Like it or not... we are the world police in a lot of cases, and there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when acts of terror are being committed against innocent people, and we choose to do nothing about it. The cause is just and worth fighting for in my opinion. But if we are going to fight we fight for total and absolute victory. Not this halfway nonsense.
We're talking about a territory that has been dominated by dictators and radical Islam... so of course they are terrified when Al Qaeda begins seizing more territories, and advances on their capital city.
Also, it's quite a bold and brazen statement to refer to the Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq as a group of "rag tag" militants. That's a grave underestimation of our enemies true capabilities. The assumption you have made in calling them rag tag militants, is the same assumption our leaders made when we first landed our birds in Baghdad and Kandahar, and that kind of thinking cost the lives of many brave men and women.
When the enemy does not wear a uniform it is difficult to tell who the civilians are versus the actual enemy we are tasked with dispatching. This adheres to a principle Sun Tzu establishes in the Art of War, all war is based on deception. The enemy, by not wearing a uniform makes it harder for us to identify them. This makes guerrilla warfare an extremely viable tactic as an option for our enemy, as the rules of engagement state we cannot fire upon anyone unless we are fired upon first, or if an attack is imminent. (On a side note... we really need to pay no attention to the geneva convention on that point. An identifiable threat does not need to fire a weapon at us to be confirmed as a threat.)
Like it or not... we are the world police in a lot of cases, and there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when acts of terror are being committed against innocent people, and we choose to do nothing about it. The cause is just and worth fighting for in my opinion. But if we are going to fight we fight for total and absolute victory. Not this halfway nonsense.
Last edited:
I never said we should commit more of anything in Iraq. I never suggested that we should extend our campaign there.
All the lives you speak of that have been lost to this war, were lost in vain. They died for absolutely nothing. The least the President could've done is finish the job we started instead of create an even bigger mess, and leave just because we think the job is done. We made the exact same mistake in Vietnam once again in the War on Terror.
At this point I don't really care if we stay or not. I hate that innocent people are being subjected to horrific terror and treachery by the Al Qaeda insurgency, but what good are we accomplishing by staying? We've been fighting this war wrong the entire time; defensively. We should've pressed for total and absoulte victory if we were that interested in winning. And who ever said we had to side with anyone? Why don't we just be on our own side like we've always been. The locals can run the show after we've done our job and completed it satisfactorily. The locals just want to live peacefully for the most part, they could care less for the insurgency.
All the lives you speak of that have been lost to this war, were lost in vain. They died for absolutely nothing. The least the President could've done is finish the job we started instead of create an even bigger mess, and leave just because we think the job is done. We made the exact same mistake in Vietnam once again in the War on Terror.
At this point I don't really care if we stay or not. I hate that innocent people are being subjected to horrific terror and treachery by the Al Qaeda insurgency, but what good are we accomplishing by staying? We've been fighting this war wrong the entire time; defensively. We should've pressed for total and absoulte victory if we were that interested in winning. And who ever said we had to side with anyone? Why don't we just be on our own side like we've always been. The locals can run the show after we've done our job and completed it satisfactorily. The locals just want to live peacefully for the most part, they could care less for the insurgency.
A
Haha. That's awesome you put that together. Good stuff. Thanks for that. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right.
I'd say walking hand in hand on your own ranch with the prince of a nation (Saudi Crown Prince) that says it's ok to murder Christians and oppress women might embolden terrorists who want to murder Christians and oppress women.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26prexy.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26prexy.html?_r=0
A
11Eleven-Bravo, as an honorably discharged U.S. military veteran: I think the U.S. sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has been noble and well intentioned and did free them from the yoke of a madman (e.g. sodamninsane) and provided them years of U.S. sacrifice, investment, and direction to give them a real opportunity. We didn't have to do that and it wasn't in our best interest to do that financially speaking. But you just can't fix Islam. It's an irreparable worldview. At least we gave them the opportunity and a different frame of reference to ponder.
I used to tell the Vietnam veterans their sacrifice mattered too. Most told me it didn't initially but I explained to them how bottling up the Soviet Union in Southeast Asia stymied their progress in South and Central America and other critical geographical locations halting their expansion which gave the West time to change gears and break them economically. "Winning" Vietnam is nothing compared to defeating the Soviet Union. And that's exactly what we did. The holding action in Vietnam was a critical tactic to defeating the Soviet Union and that's plain in hindsight.
Even if we could afford to stay in Iraq for the next fifty years (and we can't because we are in a steep decline with respect to our mounting debt, increasing interest payments, etc...), it wouldn't change Islam. Islam is Islam. They will continue to fight their religious war for the next fifty years whether or not we are there. And if the Islamic beast futurists are correct, then it will continue until eventually the anti-Christ exploits the situation presenting as their final caliphate.
All that aside, as a professional in the U.S. military you do your job and to the best of your ability plain and simple. Peace.
I used to tell the Vietnam veterans their sacrifice mattered too. Most told me it didn't initially but I explained to them how bottling up the Soviet Union in Southeast Asia stymied their progress in South and Central America and other critical geographical locations halting their expansion which gave the West time to change gears and break them economically. "Winning" Vietnam is nothing compared to defeating the Soviet Union. And that's exactly what we did. The holding action in Vietnam was a critical tactic to defeating the Soviet Union and that's plain in hindsight.
Even if we could afford to stay in Iraq for the next fifty years (and we can't because we are in a steep decline with respect to our mounting debt, increasing interest payments, etc...), it wouldn't change Islam. Islam is Islam. They will continue to fight their religious war for the next fifty years whether or not we are there. And if the Islamic beast futurists are correct, then it will continue until eventually the anti-Christ exploits the situation presenting as their final caliphate.
All that aside, as a professional in the U.S. military you do your job and to the best of your ability plain and simple. Peace.
S
Lots of names come to mind in regards to Saddam Hussein. CIA, Gehlen Org, Helms, regime change, not to mention the failed assassination attempt on Qasim by Saddam which led to Saddam's exile....and to ultimately the CIA backed coup that led to Qasim's assassination, the Baath Party's rise to power, Saddam's return from exile and his placement as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA and it policy of regime change has been happening since its inception as the OSS to facilitate its arms trade and hatred of communism. I think the SS just moved its headquarters from Germany to the US and did a name change.
I like to watch the way you think,lol,,you go straight to the issue i.e.(Sunni vs.Shiite) when others are naming the militants as Al Qaeda instead of understanding who they actually are. I can see from your post that you understand who ISIS is and that they are not AL Qaeda(which is the key to understanding the issue taking place in Iraq),,,so I like your post,,
For those who don't understand that ISIS is "NOT" Al Qaeda ,,,,here is a link explaining the friction between the two Al-Qaeda disavows any ties with radical Islamist ISIS group in Syria, Iraq - The Washington Post
For those who don't understand that ISIS is "NOT" Al Qaeda ,,,,here is a link explaining the friction between the two Al-Qaeda disavows any ties with radical Islamist ISIS group in Syria, Iraq - The Washington Post
B
it wouldn't change Islam. Islam is Islam. They will continue to fight their religious war for the next fifty years whether or not we are there. And if the Islamic beast futurists are correct, then it will continue until eventually the anti-Christ exploits the situation presenting as their final caliphate.
Bingo ! That's why fighting any war in the Middle East is fruitless unless the Arab country is a proven ally. But will the USA ever learn that oil isn't worth the bloodshed.
Bingo ! That's why fighting any war in the Middle East is fruitless unless the Arab country is a proven ally. But will the USA ever learn that oil isn't worth the bloodshed.
yep,their in search for their "caliphate",,and just like the Jews and Christians differ in who the Messiah is(Jews believe he is still coming,Christians that Jesus is the Messiah) some of the Muslims/Islams believe he(the caliph) is the 12th and that he was "hidden" and that he will reappear and lead the Islamic state's(so he's been here before and will return),,others believe he(the caliph) can be chosen from any proven Muslim/Islam. But there are many different positions on this in the Muslim faith(similar to different denominations in the christian faith)..So ISIS is Sunni and are differing with the Shiites over who is about to rise and lead their nation.(I also notice you and a few other understand this,I explained this for the benefit of the others who did not),,,,
here is a link to the "twelver" it is just another branch of the same type divisions in their faith Alawites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I am christian) so I'm including this because we(Christians) are in a struggle between light and darkness so as well as we would want to study and learn of our own faith so we can "preach the Gospel",,we need to understand the others beside our faith. Years ago when the Persian gulf war began I told my wife that "unless the u.s. studies the Quran they will never understand the way they think and will never be able to win this war until they do",,,
I guess I hadn't looked at it in that way. Well said sir, I suppose I have to reconsider my initial post somewhat.
But I still say that micro-management and failed policies defeated us in that region more so than it did secure any victories for us. We allowed the insurgents to run from us and hide in the mountains, whereas we should've chased them down and made it perfectly clear that we aren't going to let them hide to regroup logistically, only to attack again later in the future.
Occupations will fail if the cost is too great for the enemy to stay and continue fighting. I know we can't change a failed world view such as Islam, but we could have left Iraq on a better note. There was a better way to draw down our forces rather than hastily withdraw them.
But I still say that micro-management and failed policies defeated us in that region more so than it did secure any victories for us. We allowed the insurgents to run from us and hide in the mountains, whereas we should've chased them down and made it perfectly clear that we aren't going to let them hide to regroup logistically, only to attack again later in the future.
Occupations will fail if the cost is too great for the enemy to stay and continue fighting. I know we can't change a failed world view such as Islam, but we could have left Iraq on a better note. There was a better way to draw down our forces rather than hastily withdraw them.