I strongly urge everyone to read this article by Diana West. Iraq will never be a so called "Bastion of Democracy" after the departure of US Forces. Iraq is already in bed with the Islamic world that is intent in the establishment of a World Wide Caliphate as demonstrated by her close relationship with Iran and her votes in the UN and elsewhere.

We must face stop blinding ourselves to this truth. If the Islamic Chairman Obama continues to withdraw from Iraq and follows through with the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan in 18 months we will in fact surrender the Middle east to Radical Islam and the Caliphate.

Our only recourse is to maintain substantial forces in both countries for a long period of time or face a greater war with Islam, that will most defiantly include sabotage attacks in America, England, Europe, Australia, etc by the Islamic 5th Columns that have already established themselves in these nations. The Big Question here is what of Russia and China when this occurs?? I have no answer except that like the Korean War and the Vietnam War they will supply the enemy with arms and support.

This is a Dark Future for America and the World but one we must face up to and take action to thwart today, worse still is that the Obamanation Administration and the Marxist Controlled Congress will not act do to their desire to convert America into the USSR of America - who's side are they on? ? ?

Source and complete article:


The 'Surge' and 'Success,' Part II

by Diana West

So much for the lack of post-surge U.S. business benefits in Iraq, as I wrote last week. Now, what kind of post-surge ally is Iraq?

No kind.

I write in wonder that the ultimate failures of the surge strategy -- which include the failure of anything resembling a U.S. ally to emerge in post-Saddam Iraq -- have never entered national discourse. Rather, the strategy that "won Iraq" has been mythologized as a "success" to be repeated in Afghanistan.

It's not that there aren't hints to the contrary -- as when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill arrived at the Iraqi parliament in early December and "some deputies," the New York Times reported, "demanded he be barred from the building." Or when 42 percent of Iraqis polled by the BBC in March 2008 still thought it "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces. Or when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, as U.S. forces transferred security responsibilities to Iraqi forces in June, obstreperously declared "victory" over those same U.S. forces! Such incidents convey hostility toward the United States inside Iraq, but there's more. Of greater consequence are the positions against U.S. interests Iraq is taking in world affairs.

Take the foundational principle of freedom of speech, continuously under assault by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the international arena. The OIC includes the world's 57 Muslim nations as represented by kings, heads of state and governments, with policies overseen by the foreign ministers of these same 57 nations. Describing itself as the "collective voice of the Islamic world," the OIC strives to extend Islamic law throughout the world, and to that end, is the driving force at the United Nations to outlaw criticism of Islam (which includes Islamic law) through proposed bans on the "defamation of religions" -- namely, Islam. This is a malignant thrust at the mechanism of Western liberty. Where does post-surge Iraq come down in this crucial ideological struggle?

An OIC nation, Iraq is, with other OIC nations, a signatory to the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. This declaration defines human rights according to Islamic law, which prohibits criticism of Islam. Indeed, Iraq's U.S.-enabled 2004 constitution enshrines Islamic law above all. Little wonder Iraq consistently votes at the United Nations with the OIC and against the United States on this key ideological divide between Islam and the West, most recently in November.

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What makes you think that 50,000 troops will be adequate and that the Islamic Chairman Obama and the Marxist (Progressive) Controlled Congress wont Cut Off Funds just like congress did in Vietnam and surrender every thing to Islam like they did to the Communist Vietnamese? ? ?
Would you like to embellish upon that contention. Can't blame the Marxists for everything. I have a differing view.
I can't say that your support for the Islamic Chairman Obama' plans for Iraq or Afghanistan is very admirable.
Why do I have the feeling that you are a Moveon.org Trained Provocateur? ? ?
If that is the case why do you attempt to change the subject as Provocateurs do? ? ?

With your "Bit" about going into Vietnam is with out explination, as well as the Defense Contractors providing "Weapons to the Saudi's etc" with out explanation of the reason we sold them weapons smacks of Obama's Apologies for America to the world. It makes me suspect that you are just another Obomite Apologizing.
You make no comments about my post and its conclusions nor do you pick up the thread and comment Why???

I suggest that instead of rudely changing the subject as you have done here,and attack America with out any explanation of why we did the things we did as well as seeming to apologize for America do it in your own post.
You fellas have been going at it and seem to be skirting around a sorry reality and leaving it unstated. I shall offer my perception and see if you agree.

Our foreign policy has been, almost w/out exception since the quicksand morass of the farcical UN "police action" WE call The Korean War, a contrived madness of State Dept and subsequent Defense Dept ineptitude. Our government is ever locked in varying degrees of diametric political opposition seemingly taking turns at either efforts at nation building or support of the currently perceived despot who is considered the lesser of two evils. As such we enter the fray all set up for a future fall. The nation building I generally attribute to Presidents seeking to make their mark in history as "making the world safe for democracy" at any cost. The latest purveyor of that was the loyal "globalist" Little Georgie-boy Bush. However they always fail to calculate in the price the blood and animose (on both sides) at home, that they engender. The Middle East foreign policy is a classic of that which I describe and has naught to do with Marxist or Conservative ideology. It had to do with arrogance and incompetence and the inability to project the ramifications of current proposed foreign policy decision.

We are now committed tenuously at best to an indecisive commitment of blood and wealth in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time we are getting ourselves set up to be boldy involved where no nation has gone before...a third war, concurrently, on the ground (eventually) in Iran. I haven't even entered in the War on Terror.

All this in the face of NO SUBSTANTIAL commitments by ANY other nation as allies. Please do NOT suggest that some of our alleged allies have made 'serious' commitments. They have all been content to let old Uncle Sam ride his high horse into the teeth of the enemy, shed his blood and fortune, and when Old Sam has to turn and wave up the supporting forces from beyond the looonnnng and distant horizon...there's the rub. WELL..., when they finally show they are pathetically anemic in numerical consequence and mainly commit to stated "supporting" roles. A sorry joke on us is this thing we call the UN. And, once again, America is left holding the bag.

I have nothing against being that lone sentinel for freedom, but in the community of nations we have the RIGHT to expect solid commitment of substantial assistance TO ASSIST THAT LONE SENTINEL! Failing in getting such we should generally stay within our borders. WE no longer live in a pre-WWII world.

I'm a Navy vet and run a ship reunion website. I served for 6 years and gave honorable service. My views have changed from experience. When I see some pencil-necked political geek puking forth his pablum-puking bile about war (a la Dickhead Durbin) I feel like getting a firm grip about his neck. On the other hand the so-called 'hawks' are also wrong. The answer, history has shown us is usually always found in the middle, not in compromise, but in principle. We need to have more respect for our honorable veterans and their collective sacrifice, many of whom make the long trip down that dark road never to return again and all in the name of God and country and a patriotic sense of right.

(As an appropriate aside, veterans like Murtha should be shot to death by firing squad at sunrise.)





© 2018   Created by Earl B.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service