I saw the democratic response to the presidential address--what do you think?(letting a horror future ensue?)?

Question

I support the decision. Because, taking into account strategies. I know exactly what it is on the ground and what would happen in a withdraw....

A withdrawl now, would be the equivalent of our withdrawl during WWII, when we prevented Patton from confronting the Russians......or preventing the Russians from getting the nuclear bomb....

except this time, the consequences would be much war....namely, this time, we would most likely engage in nuclear war.

Let me explain. If you let down the troop levels...or 'cut the line' so to say...you make the people in Iraq anxious...and their support to radicals increases for security.

In such a scenario...what would end up happening is Iraq falling under the influence of Iran, and becoming another terrorist haven...

once this happens, harbouring terroists gives them more influence to excert demands. Such as putting the price up...and even to the extent of unleashing a new era of terror on the US...which I call the nuclear ransom

scenario...(I point you to my question referring nuclear ransom so you get the whole pretty picture)

Iran is on the way of getting a nuke, 20 or more unacounted in Russia, and lets not talk of North Korea.

A nuclear ransom scenario is when a terrorist explodes one nuke in a major city, and holds 'ransom' other cities to prevent the US from retaliating the 'nations harbouring terrorits' (Iran Syria).

Its in the terrorists' interests to protect their havens, because it expands their ideology, namely, radical islam.

Therefore, the optimum strategy in such a scenario for the US, if a nuke were to explode in a city in US, would be to nuke the major harbour nations of terrorists or most probable proliferators of nukes (NK, Syria, Iran).

So...its in the 'optimum interest' of the terrorists, to hold a city 'ransom' with a nuke...to prevent retaliation....to the main countries that harbour and expand the influence of the terroists (radical islam)...

In such a scenario...the decision to nuke the 'instigator countries' would be....a bit heated...--the president and the goverment would be threatened by millions of people who would have fled cities and were nearby, not to retaliate, out of fear of another nuke going off.

This is the most probable scenario for a nuclear war...

Now, getting back to the current decision...if we cut back troops and let the 'iraqui troops' take over...what will end up happening is an influence of radical islam.....and iraqui people turning to radicals for security due to the great 'american failure'.....

they will trust the hatred and horror of radicals for security, out of pessimism of the losing american ideology.

Therefore, this is a war of ideologies of how the world will be molded in the 21st century...

people follow the winning strategy...what you see, as dominant strategies dictate....becomes reality...

if we let radicals take over, we let radicals get strong, and a

beleif that the 'radical way of life may work'...

and this is the path to certain doom...This an ideology that beleive me, you don't want a following to ensue--it is one that is not of our way of life, and would threaten our sense of justice as we know it.

if the democrats get their strategy...and beleive me, I know about dominat strategies and scenarious (RAND corporation).

The most likely scenario is that simply, the Iraqui goverment loses its political power and it falls as a puppet goverment to radicals (such as al sadr) and Iran....

you cannot let them 'resolve' it...and allow one political faction to take over...because the winning faction will be of the ideology of radicalism--this will only lead to an unfair system of law, and one which is biased, favors shites, and to many extents, a puppet of Iran...

This will, as time transgresses, oppose US interests, and the interests of a healthy global economy...with oil...and the threat of 'nuclear ransom'...

or in other words, nuclear war---all nuclear war is a fight of tit-tat between fear of retaliation, retaliation and demands between two entities..

This means terrorists, countries, or cultures.

Terrorists have the upper hand--they are sucicide bombers--all they need to do, is hide in a container and wait till the carrier is 10 miles away from shore of a major US city and explode the bomb....and its virtually impossible to stop all water traffic and if you were to nuclearize it you would ahve fallout on all major coastal US cities...

if you let this type of radicalism fester in the middle east, you allow an organization of a hatred based society take over...fed by oil and able to get nukes easie rthan before....with NK, Iran on the way, and 20 nukes unacoutned for in Russia, it becomes a matter of time and increasingly likely over time that the wrong person will get their hands on a nuke (black market operative, terrorist, it doesn't matter, simply the wrong people).

This becomes more likely if you allow radical islam to become more powerful, more influential and with more resources such as money.

What you ahve to remmember, people follow what they see works....if radical islam, or local mafias become the only way to supply security in your neighborhood, then radical islam will take over as the ideology...

that is why it is very essential at this time in hsitory, that we supply an alternative to a flawed and unjust system....to prevent things such as a nuclear ransom from becoming icnreasingly probable over time.

We can do it if we show it to succeed...if we are shown to back down very easily, the muslims will see our system as flip-flopy and not secure...and they will fall back on radicalism..

This is why I think Bush, looking beyond all his retarded mistakes...is on the ball this time.

I think he might want to devote more troops...but the reforms were excellent..something the experts I am sure are ectatic about.

This is the bottom line:

If you let Iraq become a haven for radicalism...Then this ideology's influence expands...it enboldends Iran, which is under this ideology, and it makes the likelihood of things like oil price demand wars, and such more probable...putting the entire US economy at risk...

but more disturbing .It raises the likelihood, by the strengthening of radical islam....for a 'radical islam empire' to ensue in the 21st century...this new found power, supplied by oil....

and people backing it because the 'american way' was seen as 'shaky' 'insecure', and flip floppy...therefore falling back on radicalism...will simply mean..

normal muslims will SUPPORT the radicals more and more for security. This means that radicals, in their new found power and empire....might attempt to say, get a nuke with all their power, and say, nuke Israel,

and play nuclear ransom with the United States (nuke a city from a carrier offshore, and then hold other cities ransom to prevent

retaliation)--therefore expanding radicalism as an ideological empire all over the planet and forcing the US to negotiate out of fear of further nuclear holocaust.

if we supply an alternative to this horror scenario---such as a stable country (Iraq) that muslims see as an alternative (I mean think about it, they juts follow radicalism because they are ignorant and have no other option)....a goverment that pays better than putting road-side bombs....a way of life that is secure and stable as an alternative to radicalism...

Then regular muslims will begin NOT to support terrorists..

They might be 'ambivalent' for some time out of fear of retaliation from Syria or Iran...

But eventually, if a solid altnerative way of life turns out to be a good alternative...then they will shift and renounce terrorism, having a policy more or less like saudi arabia...

This is why I think this battle is crucial to the survival of a planet in the 21st century from a nuclear holocaust

for the whole world.

Answer 1

your lengthy explanation demonstrates how complicated -- and therefore uncertain -- the situation is. frankly, nobody can know what will happen next. i do agree that there is a job to be done, but there is much debate about what that job is.

Answer 2

You're probably right. Ameliorating a bad situation is the best that can be hoped for. I just don't see a winning outcome. The best case is the last Sunni in existence will be eradicated (a neat trick) and the Shi'a will appoint Muqtada al Sadr as the religious head, a-la-Iran, to rule Iraq. Our troops go home and now Iraq and Iran are butt-buddies in their nuclear goal. Great. Now you've got terror that really does have WMDs. Can you say Armageddon?

Answer 3

If the US withdraws its troops, the bitterness of Iraqis over US occupation will end. Otherwise it would grow, and of course some of them would try to commit terrorist acts.

Answer 4

Withdrawing from WW2? Stopping Patton? OH PLEASE!!! Will be under the influence of Iran? WTF do you think supplies the Shia with weapons? Iran. It seems Iraqis are more than happy to have more US troops to blame for their internal religious and tribal hate. I'm tired of seeing americans die for a people who don't have a clue as to what democracy is.

Answer 5

Who wants what, nobody understand now? A friend is a foe and untrust worthy is more trust worthy now?

Answer 6

Associated Press just said that BUSH is LYING:

Read it for yourself:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_fact_check