MyFox
 

MattyG's Blog

by MattyG from MA

Last Post 8 days, 3 hours Ago


Where is the next Iraq?
May 13, 2008 | 8:29 PM
Category: Political
Report This Post

Featured On: MyFoxBoston
Anytime a liberal or a Democrat mentions how the Bush admin. got us trapped in Iraq, a conservative or a Republican will probably say that we're there, can't change it and shouldn't argue about it five years later. In a sense, that is a valid point.   However, even though it's being talked about by liberals or Democrats, this election isn't necessarily about Iraq. Iraq is gone. The postwar Iraq we were told about doesn't exist. The idea of ''finishing'' the job as some conservatives or Republicans mean it is a fairy tale.   As far as I'm concerned, voting on the next mission and the Commander In Chief for that war. But, with Iran or Syria or, God forbid, Pakistan or North Korea all looming we can't afford another malleable cowboy at the helm.   I can't help thinking about Iraq with those possible adversaries in the future.
16 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 1
Happyg read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 9:49 AM

America's enemies thank you for your support. They appreciate the fact that you aren't willing to fight the fight that needs to be fought. Usama BinLaden thanks you personally for proving him to be a prophet. You are the perfect tool for all who hate America Matty. A half-assed liberal with a need to have his views validated even at the risk of national security. Take a bow Matty. I'm sure you know which direction Mecca is.
ahumbleman read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 9:57 AM

After Iraq, I think (and hope) that it is going to be extremely difficult for the next Commander in Chief to preemptively attack another country, no matter if it is a Republican or a Democrat. Pakistan is still an ally, and Syria and Iran aren't likely to seek a direct confrontation with the United States.
ahumbleman read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 12:51 PM

Yes, because the last thing we want when invading a country is to take the time to make sure we're attacking the right people, and we definitely don't want to have a sufficient idea of all the factors at play, I mean that would only be rational, and if there's one thing the Bush administration is good at, it's acting irrationally.
NorthernObserver read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 1:24 PM

MattyG, You call George Bush a Cowboy. I am not sure what that means, but Ronald Reagan was also referred to with that same title. Reagan had his successes in world politics namely the fall of the USSR. He also had his failures namely Lebanon which today is still a problem because he failed to act.

The enemies you name with the exception of Pakistan are all dictatorships being run by ruthless people who like Saddam have no intention of negotiating.

Bill Clinton negotiated with North Korea and the result is that they got nuclear material that they made or are trying to make into a bomb. Nice job with that negotiation. Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate with Iran and got lots of Americans killed and disgraced our country on the world stage. Nice job President Carter. Bill Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalia and it emboldened our enemy and became a sanctuary for them.

Protecting our country is NOT about politics but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made it so. Is the left so self absorbed in political stances that they do not understand the real threats?

If we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over. Insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result.
C_Fox read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 1:31 PM

We will continue to fight the good fight! What we won't do, is to initiate any further conflicts, as I believe we have learned a few lessons from the Iraq mess.

But, that is where my only fear lays. Iran's determination to irradicate Isreal is a real concern, and the fact that we are allied with Isreal puts us in a very precarious position. The last thing we want is to be dragged into a true war between Iran and Israel, but Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran keeps pushing in that direction. (And, some people here wonder why we are against Iran having nuclear weapons when we have them? hah!)
ahumbleman read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 2:19 PM

C_Fox,
Since Israel's creation in 1947, it has been the stated goal of every Arab/Persian country to wipe Israel off the map. They actually tried it in the '60's and '70's and Israel demonstrated their superior military capabilities. Today, countries like Iran and Syria use Israel to distract from their own internal problems. Ahmadinejad likes to talk a big game, but he's not going to act against Israel. He spouts his propaganda in an attempt to keep the unrest against his rule from fomenting too much.
C_Fox read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 3:25 PM

You may be correct, h-man (mind if I call you that?). I agree that Ahmadinejad likes to keep the embers burning, but doubt he would go so far as to full-out attack Israel. And I say this because to attack Israel is to attack the U.S. and I doubt he is so confident that he believes he could stand up to us.

Yet, I also think we aren't dealing with a rational leader in Ahmadinejad...he's as looney as the rest of those religious fanatics in his beliefs. That's the scary part! And, so what he is capable of is anyone's guess; would he really go off on Israel in his zeal to wipe out the Jews? Or is he smarter than that?

Meanwhile we have to put up with his 'saber rattling' and keep us all on edge.
C_Fox read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 4:24 PM

Sorry...meant to write "irrational". :)
ahumbleman read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 4:45 PM

(H-man works great for me)
It's important to remember that while yes, Ahmadinejad is a lunatic, he in large part does not run the show in Iran. It's the Iranian mullahs, the religious leaders who largely dictate what Iranian policy is. Ideologically they are basically identical, but the mullahs aren't stupid. They are not going to choose a direct, open confrontation with the United States or Israel, because it would end very badly for them. Instead they'll continue to influence events in Iraq by continuing to support the current Iraq regime lead by Maliki, and by providing Sadr with support. The same with Israel, they'll use their proxy Hezbollah to continue to harass Israel while avoiding open war.
C_Fox read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 5:44 PM

(I guess I didn't write it wrong. LOL)

Anyway....

Yes, H-man, Ahmadinejad is only the 'puppet' for Khomenei, the Supreme Leader and a cleric. Still, what he says has to be what Khomenei believes, too, or else he won't be in power very long. (Ahmadinejad's predecessor didn't last too long because he was a bit too out-of-sync with Khomenei.)

al-Sadr is currentlly brushing up on his clerical skills in anticipation of being the next Ayatollah. That should be fun!

Gawd, is there any end to the line of these madmen?

And, what's with the recent trip to Iran by the Iraqi delegation? They went with proof positive that Iran is supporting this conflict, but the Iraqis end up getting scolded and sent home? Jeesh! This is what happens when clerics have supreme power in the MiddleEast! Truth, logic, rational...none of it counts to religious zealots!
ahumbleman read my blog view my photos
May 14, 2008 | 5:55 PM

The problem is that the Iranian government is supporting the Maliki government, the one that American soldiers are dying to prop up. The Maliki government is completely corrupt, and if the situation doesn't change (meaning if the Maliki government isn't somehow removed from power) what we are going to end up with is an Iraq that is Iran-lite.
As to Ahmadinejad and Khomenei, I'm quite certain that in his heart of hearts, Khomenei would love nothing more than to destroy Israel, but he isn't stupid. He isn't going to risk open confrontation because the outcome would be very bad for him. Instead Iran will use Hezbollah to pester Israel, forcing it to retaliate, all the while Ahmadinejad goes around telling everyone how bad Israel and America are, and saber-rattling to his fanatics hearts content.
MattyG read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 7:05 PM

If I need validation, I've failed at getting it here. The warmonger crowd, namely you Happyg, constantly insults me and attacks, without merit, my views. I don't give a BLEEP about what you and your bloody hands think I need.

You drop UBL on us with your clueless Bush smugness and anyone who is really informed knows you have no idea about the situation. America is committed to success in Afghanistan so he's wrong that we won't fight when challenged.

Bush got us bogged down in Iraq when we had no reason to bring our Army there and now we're pissed. The only way UBL could be "right" is because Bush dropped the ball with his most important duty, which is to defend us.
MattyG read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 7:19 PM

NorthernObserver...

1. Bush has been called a cowboy before. It's a common usage that means he's reckless or irresponsible. It fits. I'd never compare Bush to Reagan. You should respect Reagan more.

2. Pakistan is really an enlightened dictatorship led by an ex-general who took power through a coup. Pakistan, nukes and all, is a disaster waiting to happen.

3. McCain will make Bush's mistakes again. It's insane to vote for him.

4. The War on Terror became political on Jan. 19, 2002. Karl Rove, not Pelosi or Reed, made it such.
Here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501EFDD
173BF93AA25752C0A9649C8B63
Happyg read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 9:51 PM

Just imagine how quickly our enemies would concede if they didn't know they had allies like yourself cheering for them from within these borders. Our enemies thank you for your continued efforts Matty. You're the best.


MattyG
May 14, 2008 | 7:05 PM If I need validation, I've failed at getting it here. The warmonger crowd, namely you Happyg, constantly insults me and attacks, without merit, my views. I don't give a BLEEP about what you and your bloody hands think I need.
MattyG read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 11:24 PM

Imagine if we had a competent commander in chief. Our real enemies would have conceded by now.
Happyg read my blog
May 17, 2008 | 7:23 AM

Like I said Matty, you should apply for the job. with your ability to use 20/20 hindsight in the current day, we's all be better off. Do the right thing Matty. Run.



MattyG
May 14, 2008 | 11:24 PM Imagine if we had a competent commander in chief. Our real enemies would have conceded by now.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




MattyG

I am a MyFoxLocal user who hasn't yet written a bio.

Member Since: 1/16/2008


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?