What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?
I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen immediately. I hope I will begin answering the question later this week. What I want to write about Iraq keeps expanding. I continue to apologize for the change in plans!
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
On my post last week entitled “What is that to Us?” I said the following: What questions should be asked of every Congressman and of every U.S. citizen who is demanding that the United States abandon Iraq? Demand that they truthfully, realistically answer these questions. What will happen in the next year after the United States leaves Iraq? What will happen in the next five years after the United States leaves Iraq? How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? In short, what will be the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? If they can not truthfully answer these questions, why are they demanding and supporting the abandonment of a newly established democratic country that we established in the first place?
The House of Representatives has voted to pullout from Iraq. “Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A1)
“A few hours after Bush’s remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A7)
Let’s see if I understand the logic of the last sentence above. The U.S. military has not been able to defeat Al-Qaida and other terrorists within Iraq to this point. We are pulling the troops out to save American lives. Yet, we are going to keep “a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.”
Does that mean that the limited residual force will be safe? Will the limited residential force be able to accomplish what the much larger American contingent could not? Will the limited residual force be more effective than the larger American contingent? Who made Congress the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? It sure wasn’t the Constitution of the United States!!!
The concept of “The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” seems ludicrous given the Democrats advocacy that troops should be withdrawn to protect lives!!! Perhaps that is why the legislation (resolution or whatever it is) requires the pullout to be accomplished by April 1. It seems a perfectly rational “April fools” joke dreamed up by people who have no business trying to fight a War on Terror by legislative enactment.
However, the larger questions listed earlier are the ones that should and must be answered by every House member who voted for this nonsense. On this post however, I want to discuss one specific question. How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? There are basically only three possible answers: 1) there will be no change in relation to our safety and the pullout from Iraq 2) the United States will be safer because of the pullout from Iraq 3) The United States will be less safe after the pullout.
Logically, let’s examine this question. I heard that a Democrat, I don’t know who it was, claimed on a talk show this weekend that our presence in Iraq has increased recruitment for Al-Qaida and increased the terrorist group’s power. I don’t know if that is true or not and actually neither does he because he can not possibly know what the conditions would be like if we had not been in Iraq. But in fact, that statement is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we ARE in Iraq and that can not be changed. One CAN NOT make decisions with hind sight.
However, here is the real question (which also can’t be answered with absolute certainty). Won’t our pulling out of Iraq be an even more powerful recruiting tool? Whether or not it is true, Al-Qaida will immediately claim (at least, I would if I were a member of the terrorist organization) that they have defeated the “Great Satan”—they have defeated the United States of America. Won’t claiming to have defeated the greatest military power in the world draw recruits into Al-Qaida? Won’t our withdrawal embolden Al-Qaida to intensify their efforts to defeat the United States throughout the world including attacking once again within the United States? (Complain as they might, no one can claim that Al-Qaida has successfully attacked within the United States since 9/11!) Why won’t Al-Qaida be willing to increase their attacks both within the United States and throughout the world? They defeated the “Great Satan”!!!
They will have learned that the United States does not have the patience to withstand terror. If we can’t win in a few years, we abandon the effort. In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II, the United States lost 6,800 men in fighting from February 19 through March 16 to capture one small Pacific island. In the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted from July 1 through July 4, 1863, the United States suffered approximately 23,000 casualties and the Confederate States of American suffered approximately 25,000 casualties. (Casualties being defined as killed or wounded.)
Today, it seems that the United States is willing to fight a war only if there are no casualties on our side. No War on Terror will be won without casualties. No War on Terror will be won if the United States is not willing to engage the enemy and suffer casualties. No War on Terror will be won by retreating and allowing the terrorists to claim victory. No War on Terror will be won if we do not accept that we are at war.
Do those members of the House, who voted for withdrawal, really believe that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will stop and say “Wasn’t that fun! Now let’s go home and live out our lives in peace and security.” The stated goal of Al-Qaida is to destroy the “Great Satan”—the United States.
Again, demand to know from every House member who voted for withdrawal: How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? Get their response in writing for future reference!!!
I’m sorry! I do plan on answering the question on immigration asked recently. However, that will not happen immediately. I hope I will begin answering the question later this week. What I want to write about Iraq keeps expanding. I continue to apologize for the change in plans!
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
On my post last week entitled “What is that to Us?” I said the following: What questions should be asked of every Congressman and of every U.S. citizen who is demanding that the United States abandon Iraq? Demand that they truthfully, realistically answer these questions. What will happen in the next year after the United States leaves Iraq? What will happen in the next five years after the United States leaves Iraq? How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? In short, what will be the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? If they can not truthfully answer these questions, why are they demanding and supporting the abandonment of a newly established democratic country that we established in the first place?
The House of Representatives has voted to pullout from Iraq. “Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A1)
“A few hours after Bush’s remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 13, 2007, page A7)
Let’s see if I understand the logic of the last sentence above. The U.S. military has not been able to defeat Al-Qaida and other terrorists within Iraq to this point. We are pulling the troops out to save American lives. Yet, we are going to keep “a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.”
Does that mean that the limited residual force will be safe? Will the limited residential force be able to accomplish what the much larger American contingent could not? Will the limited residual force be more effective than the larger American contingent? Who made Congress the Commander in Chief of the armed forces? It sure wasn’t the Constitution of the United States!!!
The concept of “The measure envisions a limited residual force to train troops, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.” seems ludicrous given the Democrats advocacy that troops should be withdrawn to protect lives!!! Perhaps that is why the legislation (resolution or whatever it is) requires the pullout to be accomplished by April 1. It seems a perfectly rational “April fools” joke dreamed up by people who have no business trying to fight a War on Terror by legislative enactment.
However, the larger questions listed earlier are the ones that should and must be answered by every House member who voted for this nonsense. On this post however, I want to discuss one specific question. How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? There are basically only three possible answers: 1) there will be no change in relation to our safety and the pullout from Iraq 2) the United States will be safer because of the pullout from Iraq 3) The United States will be less safe after the pullout.
Logically, let’s examine this question. I heard that a Democrat, I don’t know who it was, claimed on a talk show this weekend that our presence in Iraq has increased recruitment for Al-Qaida and increased the terrorist group’s power. I don’t know if that is true or not and actually neither does he because he can not possibly know what the conditions would be like if we had not been in Iraq. But in fact, that statement is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we ARE in Iraq and that can not be changed. One CAN NOT make decisions with hind sight.
However, here is the real question (which also can’t be answered with absolute certainty). Won’t our pulling out of Iraq be an even more powerful recruiting tool? Whether or not it is true, Al-Qaida will immediately claim (at least, I would if I were a member of the terrorist organization) that they have defeated the “Great Satan”—they have defeated the United States of America. Won’t claiming to have defeated the greatest military power in the world draw recruits into Al-Qaida? Won’t our withdrawal embolden Al-Qaida to intensify their efforts to defeat the United States throughout the world including attacking once again within the United States? (Complain as they might, no one can claim that Al-Qaida has successfully attacked within the United States since 9/11!) Why won’t Al-Qaida be willing to increase their attacks both within the United States and throughout the world? They defeated the “Great Satan”!!!
They will have learned that the United States does not have the patience to withstand terror. If we can’t win in a few years, we abandon the effort. In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II, the United States lost 6,800 men in fighting from February 19 through March 16 to capture one small Pacific island. In the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted from July 1 through July 4, 1863, the United States suffered approximately 23,000 casualties and the Confederate States of American suffered approximately 25,000 casualties. (Casualties being defined as killed or wounded.)
Today, it seems that the United States is willing to fight a war only if there are no casualties on our side. No War on Terror will be won without casualties. No War on Terror will be won if the United States is not willing to engage the enemy and suffer casualties. No War on Terror will be won by retreating and allowing the terrorists to claim victory. No War on Terror will be won if we do not accept that we are at war.
Do those members of the House, who voted for withdrawal, really believe that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will stop and say “Wasn’t that fun! Now let’s go home and live out our lives in peace and security.” The stated goal of Al-Qaida is to destroy the “Great Satan”—the United States.
Again, demand to know from every House member who voted for withdrawal: How will pulling out in Iraq make the United States safer in relation to the War on Terror? Get their response in writing for future reference!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:34 AM
<< Home