What losing this war will mean

[Bondo]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Originally posted by mrbscott19:<br /> I'll admit I didn't read all of it,

Ayuh,.............<br /><br />Typical Liberal,................<br /><br />That's the "Party Line",.... Isn't It ????.....

 

[sue5878]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Post started great, then degenerated a bit. We are still in both conflicts in the Middle East and will remain until we are no longer required.<br /><br />Don't want to think about what a loss would involve.<br /><br />GR

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: What losing this war will mean

I agree that we have to win this war. I don't need to keep saying it.<br />But I dare be in the minority here, since I don't agree with the current liberal view or the neo-con view. I prefer the conservative view.<br />A resounding victory is in our vital national interest, regardless of the cause.<br /><br />Once that is acheived, I'd demand we reconsider our Foreign policy and learn from our mistakes.<br />We shouldn't back repressive regimes like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussien , The Saudi Royal family and countless others in the 3rd world.<br />We made genuine enemys of "the people" of these countrys by doing this. And we did cause geniune harm to these people in the process.<br /><br />We should quit supplying arms to regional conflicts and civil wars.<br /><br />You know, 99% of the people on this board don't like our government in our business why in all git-out would you think they would like it even better?<br /><br />We need to simply start minding our own business.<br />Stop bribeing governments(very crooked regimes) with our tax dollars in aid packages.<br /><br />Our past foriegn policy failed US in another way too.<br />Thirty years ago we had a wake up call from OPEC. We were all shown from that point forward we would be held hostage by OPEC. The Saudi government made it very clear to our government.<br />We were at a cross roads then. We chose to compromise our national security and became more dependent on them.<br /><br />MG Vernon Chong should stick to Air Force operations, no doubt he's a warrior. But he doesn't comprehend failed political policy.<br />

2. Why were we attacked?<br />Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.

That statement is pure propaganda.

 

[PW2]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Ok, I'll respond. I do unfortunately have to work for a living, and when I don't respond quickly, it may be that I am busy, and not because I have nothing to say on the subject.<br /><br />First of all, this started long before what Chong suggests, and dates back to the Crusades.<br /><br />It is not due to some specific event, or foreign policy. I would not have a clue to precisely what caused this, but it is not caused by some action we have taken- actions may well fan the proverbial flames, but they did not start the fire.<br /><br />I do absolutely agree we have to win this struggle. My problem is I don't have any idea what a "win" will look like, and would not know it if I saw it.<br /><br />We are in a struggle with radical Muslims, and hopfully not with the Muslim faith, although that is not entirely clear to me. Recent polls in some Muslim countries suggest the general support level for UBL is very strong (greater than 80%)<br /><br />That is troubling.<br /><br />To me what is dividing this country is not whether we should win this war, but rather what the heck war are we fighting anyway. What in the world did Iraq have to do with this anyway in the first place?<br /><br />Now I think that if some miracle happens and somehow a moderate thoughtful democracy evolves out of Iraq, maybe that will be a win... But that will fly in the face of human nature. The problem with democracies generally is that the people generally get to choose who leads them and what direction that will take--and I am not at all sure that is what we really want.<br /><br />However, somehow we need to get the civilized world, and moderate rational factions of the Muslim faith, to somehow realize that it is in their self interest generally to stop the radicals and their violent tactics. Of course that is a Polyanna like view of this. I don't know how to do that exactly. But it should guide our policy somehow.<br /><br />And while PC or not PC, we need to do our best to protect ourselves, enlist the rest of the civilized world to help us protect each other, but not abandon the core values, and freedoms, and other aspects of life that make it worth fighting for. It is a tough balance no doubt.<br /><br />And I am afraid that I see no outcome in Iraq that will help us achieve these goals. How can we "win" if there is no outcome that is acceptable?

 

[PW2]

Re: What losing this war will mean

To better articulate my views on this, a recent column by Tom Friedman of the NYT perfectly reflects my opinion:<br /><br />>quote on><br /><br />If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution <br />By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NYT) 867 words<br />Published: July 8, 2005<br /><br />Yesterday's bombings in downtown London are profoundly disturbing. In part, that is because a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England, is almost like a bombing in our own country. In part, it's because one assault may have involved a suicide bomber, bringing this terrible jihadist weapon into the heart of a major Western capital. That would be deeply troubling because open societies depend on trust -- on trusting that the person sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite. <br />The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday. <br /><br /><br />But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations. <br /><br />That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies -- particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America -- look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West. <br /><br />So this is a critical moment. We must do all we can to limit the civilizational fallout from this bombing. But this is not going to be easy. Why? Because unlike after 9/11, there is no obvious, easy target to retaliate against for bombings like those in London. There are no obvious terrorist headquarters and training camps in Afghanistan that we can hit with cruise missiles. The Al Qaeda threat has metastasized and become franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells. <br /><br />Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists -- if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings -- or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way -- by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent. <br /><br />And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village. <br /><br />What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough. <br /><br />The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day -- to this day -- no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. <br /><br />Some Muslim leaders have taken up this challenge. This past week in Jordan, King Abdullah II hosted an impressive conference in Amman for moderate Muslim thinkers and clerics who want to take back their faith from those who have tried to hijack it. But this has to go further and wider. <br /><br />The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Once that is achieved, I'd demand we reconsider our Foreign policy and learn from our mistakes. We shouldn't back repressive regimes like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussien , The Saudi Royal family and countless others in the 3rd world.

That policy change has already been made and Condi Rice has articulated in public several times:<br /><br />

<br />"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither,"

We made genuine enemys of "the people" of these countrys by doing this. And we did cause geniune harm to these people in the process.[/

It's true that many people in the Middle East see the US as the power behind their governments and resent us for it. But to think that is where it begins and ends is not accurate. It is far more complex. Remember, we aren't the only government who does business with them. the whole world does. China and the Soviets sold them plenty of arms. The whole western world did business with them. The French and Brits were/are neck deep into ME politics and have been for centuries - heck many of them are former colonies. Yet we are the ones they attack. No, there is a lot more to it than "blow back" of our own foreign policy... <br /><br />First, the governments, in an effort to deflect attention from their own failings, use their state controlled press, their radical religious leaders and the Palestinian conflict to demonize the US. It's not all that different from the way Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats. We are made to be the source of all their problems yet few understand the extent we help them through things like aid, education opportunity, and fighting on behalf of Muslims in places like Bosnia... <br /><br />Second, many simply have no hope in their own countries. They have no freedom, no jobs, no future. They see the West and are humiliated at how far behind they are - A once proud people who lead the world in the arts and sciences and had empires that rivaled any through history are now centuries behind and see no path to catching up.<br /><br />From Longitudes and Attitude by Thomas Friedman:<br />

This sense of having fallen behind in the quest for modernity, this sense of having failed to build the freedom and technology prowess of the West, is pervasive in the Arab-Muslim world today. And it expresses itself in various forms: denial of responsibility for bad things that come out of the Arab world, conspiracy theories that relive them of any responsibility, and a constant love-hate relationship with America.<br /><br />Those are the pro-American Arabs. The hardcore anti-American Arabs, who's numbers ARE NOT small, were not so ambivelent...

Make no mistake, if we didn't have a single soldier in the ME, we (the entire Western World)are still there through the Internet, Satellites, etc. The know how big the disparity is and they feel, in the word's of one well known Egyptian scholar, "feel like Pygmies in the land of giants."<br /><br />Third, is Islam's unwillingness/inability to adapt to modernity the way most other major religions have. It hasn't adapted at all to the modern world. It's strict, rigid and repressive. However, it does offer a solution to their problems: Jihad. It does offer a better life: Martyrdom. It does offer honor: respect and care for the families of terrorists.<br /><br />No, a change in foreign policy alone is not going to solve this problem. Pulling out won't solve it either. The entire game has to be changed. These people need to be shown a way out. That was what Iraq was partly about: Changing the game...<br /><br />There is even more to it that this feeble attempt to outline some of it. I urge everyone to read all of Friedman's stuff and "ghost Wars" and you'll get a good first hand sense of what is really at the core of this all and where it is headed. The thing about Friedman IMHO is this, he knows the game has to be changed but he doesn't have the stomach to do what it will really take.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: What losing this war will mean

PW, again Friedman is dead-on, but now read his other stuff and it's clear that they will not restrain the terrorists. They can't, it's like an out of control nuclear reaction and they can't stop it even if they wanted to. They allowed way too many Muslims to become brainwashed beyond hope through decades of indoctrination in Madrases and terror training camps and through pure lies in their state controlled press. I'd bet anything Friedman knows this will not and can not be ended by the Muslims but being the liberal optimist he is, he has high hopes.<br /><br />The only people who could really end this from the Muslim side are the clerics, and they are the ones preaching jihad and brainwashing their followers. They are not going to end a conflict they have tried so hard to bring about. These nuts think they can win (and maybe they can). They honestly think they defeated the Soviets and can defeat the West too. They think Allah wants the planet to himself and their job is to make it happen. These are true believers we are dealing with, not lying, opportunistic politicians with ulterior motives.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: What losing this war will mean

PW2,<br /><br />I agree with most of what you said and I won't point out the differences. It IS incumbant on the Muslim clerics to denouce and extricate themselves from those who would prostitiute their beliefs and twist the teachings for personal agenda's. One problem, very few seem to have strong enough beliefs to denouce those who are *******izing a "world" religion.<br /><br />I cannot understand why "true believers" would fail to speak up and oppose those who would use their belief system for violence and political gain. I have to look to the world media who fails to report the few that speak out and continue to run with the If it bleeds it leads mentality. A recent survey pointed out that 87% of muslims renounce the activities of the radicals but only 30+% would turn in a cell if they knew of one. This is the heart of the problem. Where are the liberals who love nothing more than to point out the darker side of the catholic church's history when it comes to this unprovoked act of murder. They still report terroristic attacks as some holy battle against the rampaging hord.<br /><br />Justice must be swift and apathy should become a crime of complicity. Those who think that this is a holy war and foster that belief are truely part of the problem. Why are men who blow themselves up in public places not called murderers? Terrorists? Homicidal nutcases? No we call them martyrs. Duh. We can't support the troops while providing aid and comfort to the enemy by slanted and biased reporting. <br /><br />This is one of those black and white issues that needs to be addressed as such. Understanding the motivations of murderers isn't news, at best its speculation, and in reality it isn't relavant. Its political posturing and endangering the lives of others is not the role of "journalists". <br /><br />We need the public support of those who already oppose radical murder in the name of religion.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: What losing this war will mean

I cannot understand why "true believers" would fail to speak up and oppose those who would use their belief system for violence and political gain.

Read the Koran... It is the true believers who are driving the violence. Political correctness prevents an honest discussion. <br /><br />The terrorists are indoctrinated and radicalized by the clerics - the leadership. The Clerics run Iran and they are one of the biggest supporters of terrorism. It's the Clerics who run the Madrases. It is the Clerics who provide the religious justification for their Jihad. It is the Clerics who want a world free from infidels (all non-Muslims). Consider that over 60,000 people were trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and many, many more have gone through the Madrases system all over the world (especially Pakistan).<br /><br />To expect Clerics, who have worked their whole lives to create this war, to now denounce it, is pure fantasy. Just like it's pure fantasy to think this is just a small group of nuts - it's not. Read Friedman and Ghost Wars and you'll quickly learn they are not a small minority.

 

[cart7]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Originally posted by mrbscott19:<br /> <br /><br />The Iran incident in 1979 was a revolution. Iranians overthrew the government that the US put into place there. So they took hostage the Americans in high government places because they happened to be there at the time of the revolt. They simply wanted their country back.<br /><br />

The Shah was no nice guy either, possibly as murderous as Saddam and we were backing him.<br /><br />I was working for McDonnell-Douglas at the time and the company was desperately trying to find people to go over there for flight-line repair jobs since the folks that were already there were bailing out. Mac was offering a $50,000 bonus for those crazy enough to go over. The Shah was kicked out before the jobs took effect. No, I didn't take the job, I couldn't see getting off the plane over there while panicked Americans were getting on one to go home to get out of there.

 

[ErikDC]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Here's the way I view the situation. Whenever I see a video released by a terrorist, it's usually full of denunciations and qoutes from the Koran, usually going along the lines of, "Those who do not submit to the will of Allah shall be considered infidels and be destroyed.' Call me crazy but I take the terrorist at his word and have no doubt that he would kill me without a second thought. I didn't hear him say something like, "We are envious of your free culture so I want you dead." I keep hearing that in the media and it makes no sense. If they wanted to be free then they would take steps to be free, not to blow themselves up amongst innocent civilians over and over and over again. Nobody wants to say it but it's a Holy War as far as the terrorists are concerned. It makes for a long, messy war, no doubt about that but they will not stop until we root them out and kill them. There is no negotiating, period. <br /><br />Sorry about the rant, feel free to pick it apart if you would like, someone will.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: What losing this war will mean

M&R, excellent post. MG Chong made some excellent points, presented his opinions in a fine fashion, devoid of emotion, which is always wrought with error. I disagree with some points, or at least with the required thoughts to believe those points. But I agree that we can’t lose this war. I do disagree with the assertion that in order to support winning this war we have to support the idiot in the White House. I hope the next president doesn’t require “yes men” to surround him in his administration. I read with great interest all of the replies. Here are my thoughts/questions regarding some of what I read.<br /><br />Pointer, so are you pro-China and anti-feminine? Why aren’t women deserving of the same freedoms and privileges the rest of us are? Your entire post bewildered me. It sounds like you want us to be just like China. No thank you.<br /><br />Dolluper, terrorists deserve no rights? I agree, but how do we determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t? There MUST be some safeguards in place. Even if that means giving the terrorists some rights. What I would like to see is a mechanism in place where the administration is required to demonstrate a reason for their assertions a person is a terrorist or “enemy-combatant”, and not merely a person of interest. Under the current situation, YOU could be whisked off to Gitmo and no one would know you were there for months, or years, with no hope of fair treatment or any rights.<br /><br />Vlad, I agree that this is a war against an ideology. And that can never be won by a physical war. We must change that ideology, or provide them an acceptable “out”.<br /><br />

Originally posted by Skinnywater:<br /> <br /><br />You know, 99% of the people on this board don't like our government in our business why in all git-out would you think they would like it even better?<br /><br />We need to simply start minding our own business.<br />

I wrote this a long time ago. If we had been, we wouldn’t have had 9/11 to begin with. What I mean by this is if we had been minding OUR business and that is protecting our people and properties, we would not have allowed the loopholes to exist that allowed the terrorist hijackers their opportunities.<br /><br />

Originally posted by Ralph<br /> <br /><br />No, a change in foreign policy alone is not going to solve this problem. Pulling out won't solve it either. The entire game has to be changed. These people need to be shown a way out.<br />

Like I already said. Unfortunately our head village idiot, I mean president doesn’t know the way, so he can’t possibly show them the way out. Hopefully our political machine will smarten up and put an intelligent person in the White House and then maybe we can show them the way out.<br /><br />M&R, you sounded like you support our actions because we didn’t adequately protect ourselves and allowed the terrorists opportunities. The terrorists were here, so shouldn’t we be concentrating on securing HERE?<br /><br />

Originally posted by PW2<br /><br />We are in a struggle with radical Muslims, and hopefully not with the Muslim faith, although that is not entirely clear to me. Recent polls in some Muslim countries suggest the general support level for UBL is very strong (greater than 80%)<br /><br />That is troubling.<br /><br />To me what is dividing this country is not whether we should win this war, but rather what the heck war are we fighting anyway. What in the world did Iraq have to do with this anyway in the first place?<br /><br />

What Iraq has to do with it, for baby Bush at least, is simple. Daddy invaded Iraq, and history remembers no the liberation of Kuwait, but the fact that daddy Bush didn’t get Saddam. So baby Bush is “finishing what daddy started.” To hell with truth, reason or proof of WMD’s. Baby Bush was hell bent on invading and nothing and no one would stop him. That is what Iraq had to do with it. Iran had a long history, with proof, or their support of terrorism, and al qaeda., but why didn’t we invade Iran and depose their government? Daddy didn’t so they can’t be bad guys.<br /><br />I hope and pray that our next president will work harder at uniting this country and building support for this war through intelligent acts and sound reasoning that the current administration has failed and refused to do. Or perhaps been unable to do through inadequacy. <br /><br />As for giving our troops all that they need to win this war, I agree, but not at the expense of our homeland and it’s security. Bush and his war will bankrupt this country. All we can hope for is being saved by our next president, if we survive this one.<br /><br />I know most of you will take exception to my slamming bush, but he has demonstrated time and again that he can’t be trusted with our liberties, trusted to tell the truth and utilize accurate data, or to live up to his word (the Rove controversy.) He stated in 2004 that he would fire anyone found to have leaked Plame’s name. Granted the administration and Rove are still denying any truth to Rove being the source, but as has been proved out many times before, the truth is what came out. The mud in the water is the spin the administration is trying to use for damage control. And baby bush {b}is{/I] an idiot who requires “yes-men” to be near him. Why else does he fill his “hometown meeting” with sympathetic republican sheople? He can’t justify his actions to those who question him, so he makes sure no one can.<br /><br />In closing, I support our troops and what they are doing. And I agree that we can't lose this war. I just would like a little more intelligence in the White House.

 

[dogsdad]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Some of you guys will slam Bush for choosing to topple Saddam in one breath, and in the next breath criticize US policy for having backed him during the war between Iraq and Iran. Your posturing is transparently political. And your insistence that Bush is of lower intelligence is laughable. I'd bet money Mr. Bush is considerably brighter than you, Mr. Moore. Calling someone stupid does not make it so, and it does not make you smart.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: What losing this war will mean

That policy change has already been made and Condi Rice has articulated in public several times:<br />

Pay particular attention to the African countrys listed. Undoubtably we're in process of creating the next generation of terrorists there. Arms, money for arms, political winks and nods to some of the most brutal, unelected "creeps" in the world. But they do have oil....<br />The Tables and notes links at the bottom are interesting as well.<br /> http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html <br /><br />Here's an interesting and confusing example. The US version seems to be more propaganda than fact. Most Haitian news sources and grass-roots seem to slant anti-American involvement.<br />And fact does seem stranger than fiction. Seems we violated/ignored our own very recently written and signed Organisation of American States (OAS) agreement regarding Haiti and President (elect)Aristiede.<br /> http://www.ijdh.org/ <br /><br />Ralph, have you read "Where The Right went Wrong" by Pat Buchanan?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: What losing this war will mean

David L. Moore wrote in part;<br />

To hell with truth, reason or proof of WMD’s. Baby Bush was hell bent on invading and nothing and no one would stop him.

Why is it that you and the left convieniently ignore relavant facts that might lead you to a different conclusion?<br /><br />Let me remind you of those facts. Through out 1996-2000 there were several influential members of the legislative, executive branch and the intellegence agencys that consistantly spoke of, warned and preached of the dangers of Saddam's WMD's. These crys of WMD's came from the previous administration several times. Clinton, Gore, Madaline Albright and others on the Senate intellegence commitee, some Democrats some Republican. <br />And as late as 2003 the legislative branch voted to take action in Iraq based on the same information that was given to them back in the late '90's and post 911. As well as the same info that was available to the President at the time! <br /><br />Why would you expect a President 8 months into his new term, after such a catastrophy as 911 to think or be advised any differently regarding Iraq?<br /><br />Simple question that needs an answer.<br /><br />(edited for spelling only)

 

[POINTER94]

Re: What losing this war will mean

David David David. Did you not read my post? The first, the very first line of the post states: "If we don't stop them, who will?" I answered that question - The Chinese. I pointed out a historical perspective, and the fact that the current political environment started with the mass murder of 35 million of their own citizens. No admiration there.<br /><br />What is admirable is that they don't put 25% of their male children on riddlin because they run around all day and make alot of noise. They are not concerned with abusing underwear. They don't think their sons need counseling because they want to play cops and robbers and play with plastic guns. And guess what they are so backward as to think the robber is the bad guy. They don't think that its "UNFAIR" that the standards for the men and women in the military are not the same. They actually recognize that there is a difference between men and women and utilize their strengths individually. Not just dumb down the curve to make everyone equal. Soldiers are expected to fight in their army and they don't have the Nancy Pelosi's of the world telling them they are too mean and too physical. They don't provide sensitivity training for the men of their army so they don't offend or insult anyone anywhere at anytime. They would round up terrorists and put them in holes in the ground not in air conditioned condo's where their living conditions are better than the soldiers guarding them. They realize that war is hell and providing lawyers to the enemies soldiers is just plain retarded. The do not subscribe to this politically correct hogwash that continues to hamstring our military in every conflict since the 60's (the rise of the feminist movement) They realize a fistfight is not an opportunity to explore our feelings. Its a fistfight. They subscribe to the same belief I was raised with, if someone punches my brother I punch the sob for my bro. Not explore their motivation, upbringing, paternal abuse, mental state of mind, when they were weaned from the teat and all the other politically correct crap that pervades our society today. The women in their army don't get pregnant to avoid service in a war zone, then leverage the "childs best interest" to make themselves a sympathic victim.<br /><br />The chinese play to win, we don't. We are more interested in social policy experiments to make it more "fair" than actually winning. We scream how important women in combat are, then decry that women are handling male muslim prisoners. Gee what a confusing concept. I thought we were all equal. Well not equal, kind of equal, the same but different, different but the same. What a cluster we made of our society in the name fair. <br /><br />The army is around to break stuff and kill people. Foster it, understand it and use it. We now have a society of little boys who have been raised that their natural instincts are wrong, and when they don't conform we drug them and indoctinate them to what is "right". Still confused, so am I.<br /><br />The feminist movement is more interested in their political agenda then the safety of our soldiers, the security of our country and the impact on the next generation. I will say that most of todays women understand and relish being women not men in a dress. That being a woman is a beautiful and beneficial to everyone when they are allowed to be what they are naturally. Pat Schroeder and Ellenor Schmeel were just plain wrong. Say it with me WRONG. Please put it in writing, WRONG. Continuing to make social policy based on this mindset - WRONG. NOW gang - WRONG. Allowing the reminates of their doctrine to address public policy - WRONG. Making women into men - WRONG. Turning little boys into little girls - WRONG.<br /><br />Skinnywater, just to add to you last post, Tony Blair, Validir Putin, Clinton, Isreal, Pakistan, France, Australia, the actions of sadam himself gasing the kurds, even the UN had evidence of WMD. But hey, blame Bush for actually having a pair. Talk about the liberal press pushing an agenda. It isn't fair, I need counseling.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: What losing this war will mean

People who think terrorism is basically America's own fault or all of this will end if we just mind our own business are just very badly misinformed. There is nothing we can do to end this short of winning this war everywhere. Unfortunately, the blame America fist crowd is going to learn that first hand if these terrorist get their hands on a WMD. And, given how many members of the Muslim Brotherhood there are in the Pakistani military, they odds are good they will. [The CIA used to have a yearly beard count of the Pakistani military to help gauge the number of radical islamists in control in Pakistan. They also used to take the money we supplied to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and funnel it to mostly only to radical Islamists - most of the money and arms we provided to the Mujahadeen was managed and dispersed by the Pakistani military. That is basically why the Taliban came to power.]<br /><br />Throughout history, the cost of doing nothing and pulling back were relatively small for the US. It was very hard to hurt the US because of our geographic location and the retaliative simplicity of weapons. Those days are long gone. In this day and age, a small group of "super empowered" people can kill tens of thousands fairly easily.<br /><br />These people blow themselves up in crowds of CHILDREN seeking candy. They blow themselves up in schools filled with CHILDREN. They fly planes into buildings filled with people. They blow themselves up on buses and trains filled with people going to work. How can anyone believe this is something we have brought on ourselves and would end if we simply minded our own business? Unfortnately, America is still asleep. <br /><br />I haven't read Pat's book yet Skinnywater but I pay close attention to him and he has many valid points but I think Pat has some fundamentally flawed assumptions. <br /><br />First, let's call a spade a spade; In Pat's world, our problems in the Middle East can be traced to our support of Israel. Unfortunately that basic assumption ignores the whole religious underpinning of this war. It ignores the fact that billions and billions have been spent over decades by the Saudis indoctrinating the Muslim world with radical Wahhabism who's fundamental goal is a world free of infidels (note I said world, not country, not region but whole world). The Saudis and other wealthy gulf nations support clerics, madrasses, mosques, etc., primarily focused on spreading Wahhabism.<br /><br />A decent overview of wahhabism: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm <br /><br />Second, Pat's trade policies are dangerous. Because of technology people around the world get an up close and personal look into their neighbor's back yard. They are reminded everyday how big the disparity is between the haves and the have nots. That breeds envy and resentment which leads to violence by super-empowered individuals and nations if they are not given an opportunity to develop their own economies. The best way to allow these places to develop is global free trade. Sure it may cost us jobs but in the long run in very well could save a lot of lives... think about it...

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Originally posted by Skinnywater:<br /> David L. Moore wrote in part;<br />

To hell with truth, reason or proof of WMD’s. Baby Bush was hell bent on invading and nothing and no one would stop him.

Why is it that you and the left convieniently ignore relavant facts that might lead you to a different conclusion?<br /><br />Let me remind you of those facts. Through out 1996-2000 there were several influential members of the legislative, executive branch and the intellegence agencys that consistantly spoke of, warned and preached of the dangers of Saddam's WMD's. These crys of WMD's came from the previous administration several times. Clinton, Gore, Madaline Albright and others on the Senate intellegence commitee, some Democrats some Republican. <br />And as late as 2003 the legislative branch voted to take action in Iraq based on the same information that was given to them back in the late '90's and post 911. As well as the same info that was available to the President at the time! <br /><br />Why would you expect a President 8 months into his new term, after such a catastrophy as 911 to think or be advised any differently regarding Iraq?<br /><br />Simple question that needs an answer.<br /><br />(edited for spelling only)

Why is that you and the right who can't see or think if the Red party doesn't say so can't understand that baby bush had information and intelligence that discredited this previous erroneous information. The evidence that Saddam had WMD's was largely a tactic utilized by Saddam to deter invasion, not a fact. And that information was available to the idiot on Pennsylvania Avenus, BEFORE he sent us into Iraq. And you ignored the point that Iran had proven ties to al Qaeda, while Iraq was meremly suspected. But that doesn't refelct goo don bush so it can;t be true. And therefore must be ignored. You and the right need to dig your heads out of the red party's a$$ and see the light of day. Only once you can think for yurself can we truly win this war. Giving ANYBODY absolute power is a bad thing, regardless of who they are, except for God. And that is exactly what the red party wants for their puppet.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: What losing this war will mean

David,<br /><br />As a member (loosely) of the red party, I would agree with you but then I wouldn't be thinking for myself. Hey what's that smell? Anyone going to the Kool-aid party at the Pelosi mansion?

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: What losing this war will mean

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> David David David. Did you not read my post? The first, the very first line of the post states: "If we don't stop them, who will?" I answered that question - The Chinese. I pointed out a historical perspective, and the fact that the current political environment started with the mass murder of 35 million of their own citizens. No admiration there.<br /><br />What is admirable is that they don't put 25% of their male children on riddlin because they run around all day and make alot of noise. They are not concerned with abusing underwear. They don't think their sons need counseling because they want to play cops and robbers and play with plastic guns. And guess what they are so backward as to think the robber is the bad guy. They don't think that its "UNFAIR" that the standards for the men and women in the military are not the same. They actually recognize that there is a difference between men and women and utilize their strengths individually. Not just dumb down the curve to make everyone equal. Soldiers are expected to fight in their army and they don't have the Nancy Pelosi's of the world telling them they are too mean and too physical. They don't provide sensitivity training for the men of their army so they don't offend or insult anyone anywhere at anytime. They would round up terrorists and put them in holes in the ground not in air conditioned condo's where their living conditions are better than the soldiers guarding them. They realize that war is hell and providing lawyers to the enemies soldiers is just plain retarded. The do not subscribe to this politically correct hogwash that continues to hamstring our military in every conflict since the 60's (the rise of the feminist movement) They realize a fistfight is not an opportunity to explore our feelings. Its a fistfight. They subscribe to the same belief I was raised with, if someone punches my brother I punch the sob for my bro. Not explore their motivation, upbringing, paternal abuse, mental state of mind, when they were weaned from the teat and all the other politically correct crap that pervades our society today. The women in their army don't get pregnant to avoid service in a war zone, then leverage the "childs best interest" to make themselves a sympathic victim.<br /><br />The chinese play to win, we don't. We are more interested in social policy experiments to make it more "fair" than actually winning. We scream how important women in combat are, then decry that women are handling male muslim prisoners. Gee what a confusing concept. I thought we were all equal. Well not equal, kind of equal, the same but different, different but the same. What a cluster we made of our society in the name fair. <br /><br />The army is around to break stuff and kill people. Foster it, understand it and use it. We now have a society of little boys who have been raised that their natural instincts are wrong, and when they don't conform we drug them and indoctinate them to what is "right". Still confused, so am I.<br /><br />The feminist movement is more interested in their political agenda then the safety of our soldiers, the security of our country and the impact on the next generation. I will say that most of todays women understand and relish being women not men in a dress. That being a woman is a beautiful and beneficial to everyone when they are allowed to be what they are naturally. Pat Schroeder and Ellenor Schmeel were just plain wrong. Say it with me WRONG. Please put it in writing, WRONG. Continuing to make social policy based on this mindset - WRONG. NOW gang - WRONG. Allowing the reminates of their doctrine to address public policy - WRONG. Making women into men - WRONG. Turning little boys into little girls - WRONG.<br /><br />Skinnywater, just to add to you last post, Tony Blair, Validir Putin, Clinton, Isreal, Pakistan, France, Australia, the actions of sadam himself gasing the kurds, even the UN had evidence of WMD. But hey, blame Bush for actually having a pair. Talk about the liberal press pushing an agenda. It isn't fair, I need counseling.

I am humbled. I totally misunderstood your point. While I agreed with almost this post I did diagree with a few points. My disagreement with holding "enemy combatants" without any accountablility is that the abuses of this current administration raise serious concerns. Concerns that any idividual that disagrees with bush could be spirited away without anyone knowing. My only point of interest in this area is accountability of who is there and why. Beyond that, if they actually are enemy combatants, let bush keep them indefinately. If they aren't, let them defend themselves and return to society. Simple as that. So called prisoners of war are supposed ot be held until the end of the war. What is so hard for the liberal bleeding hearts to understand? But for the political victims, and the victims of circumstance, why should they be held? A tough area to police to be sure, but when it is all done in secrecy, it is wrong, no matter what.<br /><br />As for "evidence of WMD." As I stated earlier, and has come out in the press lately, with proof by way of actual government documents, the administration had reason to doubt the actual existence of WMD's. Instead of heeding these intelligence reports that refuted it's position, the administration chose to ignore them and invade anyway. That is ignorance and arrogance. Bush wanted to invade and "finish what daddy didn't/couldn't." And what people don't know or don't want to acknowledge, daddy bush couldn't take out Saddam, by international decree. I don't remember exactly what it was or how it was worded, but international rules prohibited removing the political leader of a country. So the first bush could not remove Saddam, and acted responsibly by not doing so. But his desire to was another motive for baby bush.<br />Otherwise, Pointer I read with interest your reasons. Very well written, I almost thought it was one of JB's. Thank you for explaining and clarifying my misunderstanding.