October 21, 2004
We MUST Fight Terrorists in Iraq or They Will Come Here?
Of all the inarticulate inept arguments that one is layered like a cyanide frosted wedding cake with misconceptions and unneeded death. First of all we did not have to go to Iraq; this President chose to take us there. Not even historians will know why for sure. Those real reasons, like so much about this Administration, are hidden in the constant barrage of misdirection and spin. The level of spin surrounding everything done in the White House since Clinton left is amazing and disgusting.
It is amazing because W tries so hard to appear to be a simple clear thinking man. It is disgusting because it does nothing but obscure the real actions and failures of this Administration, I will try to deal with just one small area of misdirection that has been successful, the issue of fighting the terrorists there because otherwise we will have to fight them here. First of all, outside of Afghanistan, it is the terrorists who have chosen when and where to engage with us, not the other way around. From 9/11 2001 to today the only time we actually attacked the terrorists was in Afghanistan. There were virtually no terrorists in territories controlled by Saddam when we attacked Iraq. We still don’t know if Zarakawai is in Iraq or directing part of the action from outside that nation.
We really don’t have the address of any of the major terrorist leaders today like we did when they were in Afghanistan trapped at Tora Bora. We are fighting men who were not a part of any terrorist organization before we invaded Iraq, our own intelligence agencies are telling us that. The terrorists who will attack us here the next time we are attacked are not fighting us in Iraq! They are resting somewhere where we will not bother them until they choose to strike. That is why terrorism is an effective strategy, because the terrorists get to choose when and where they attack. The illusion that we can force them to fight us by attacking somewhere that they are not is so absurd as to become a successful one, because no one really looks at the hand where the action really is taking place.
Of course they will send raw recruits to fight us in Iraq, and suicide bombers, but the trained penetration teams do not have to go there they can use the disenfranchised locals. If there are Al Queda cells in the USA do you think they are catching planes for Iraq? This string of absurdity is cut in so many places that even Harry Houdini couldn’t put it back together again. First the premise that terrorists engaged us in Iraq because they were afraid of a democratic state developing there is silly. They would love nothing more than a true democracy in Iraq, it would be a Shiite democracy with its roots buried deep in Islam. Why wouldn’t they want that? It’s the first step toward what they are fighting for, an Islamic society founded on Islamic law.
Their Caliphate flows from free elections in Iraq much faster than from civil war and chaos. They simply do not believe that we intend to allow Iraq self-determination any time soon. They are quite obviously right. Look at the laws our occupation has saddled Iraq with related to their own industrial base. Our companies are trying to take over running all of the major industries there. That is one reason the insurgency is so well supported. Their nation has been trading with the world long before the time of Christ, so you think that they can’t tell when they are being taken for a batch of rubes?
The real statement of the case about our presence in Iraq is based on the fact that we have helped the real terrorists’ recruiting efforts immensely by not concentrating on Afghanistan and entering Iraq. They have volunteer suicide bombers enough drawn from the Iraqi people, but they can now choose from people in any of the Islamic nations, even those ostensibly friendly to us. It was no accident of fate that so many of the people who carried out the attacks of 9/11were Saudis, That was a political statement as strong as the attacks themselves. The statement was “You have no real friends in the Islamic world.” It was not true at the time but our war in Iraq is making it more likely to become true every day.
Has Iraq made the world a safer place? Even Tony Blair has admitted it has not and he has hung his political legacy on Iraq, too bad for Tony but old Empires never die, they just smell that way. We now own Iraq and we are weaker militarily, and our opponents are stronger. That is not a winning strategy in any war, particularly a war that our enemy intends to make a war of attrition. We will die of a million little wounds if we continue to believe fallacies like the statement, “We are fighting them in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them here at home.” Afghanistan, maybe, Iraq, never! God bless you all and keep you safe in these confusing times. ©Henri Reynard/GoldenBrush Interactive
Look at the laws our occupation has saddled Iraq with related to their own industrial base. Our companies are trying to take over running all of the major industries there. That is one reason the insurgency is so well supported.
My favorite story about how wonderfully our reconstruction efforts are going in Iraq is regarding an American company contracted to build a cement factory for 2 million over two years. They couldn’t fulfill the contract and an Iraqi firm took over and they did it for 80,000 and did it in 8 months.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 21, 2004 08:17 AMThe “fly paper” rationale combined with the idea that we are liberating Iraq is just so much cognitive dissonance. The Iraqis will love us as liberators for occupying their country and making them the targets of terrorists? It just doesn’t sound like something a sane person could accept.
“The flies have captured the fly paper.”
-John Steinbeck
Hey Joseph,
Isn’t it kinda of strange that the current administration thinks outsourcing jobs is a good thing, and sends American jobs overseas. But when it comes to Iraq’s rebuilding efforts, they want to make sure american companies get the contracts instead of the citizens of the country their rebuilding. Americans cant have a job in the US but they can go to Iraq to work. Is it just me or is this a backwards employment philosophy. Why cant eveyrbody just work in their own damn country.
Posted by: codco at October 21, 2004 10:19 AMThe terrorists already came here, or have you already forgotten 9/11? I would much rather see this war fought abroad, instead of on American soil.
As for the skepticism about the Iraq people’s reaction to us, take a look at this blog, Iraq the Model, mentioned in today’s Opinion Journal. This blog is by an Iraqi doctor. (Apparently, Iraqi medical schools teach in English, so that is why most bloggers and translators are doctors.) When you read the latest entry, you can feel the inescapable joy the author felt at such simple things as getting a passport and traveling outside Iraq for the first time. These people have freedom for the first time in a long time. It’s time we stopped taking that freedom for granted.
Posted by: Troy at October 21, 2004 10:23 AMTroy said
The terrorists already came here, or have you already forgotten 9/11? I would much rather see this war fought abroad, instead of on American soil.
So you think the terrorists who are still here, eating Cheetos and watching Survivor on their plasma TV’s are buying plane tickets so they can go to Iraq and be killed by American soldiers in the desert?
Josepth Briggs was right. The argument that we’re liberating Iraq while simultaneously inviting our enemies to go there and fight is contradictory. When the two stated motives disagree, it generally means there is a third, unstated motive.
Posted by: Alejo at October 21, 2004 10:28 AMcodco,
How has this adminsitration sent jobs overseas? When did the President order employers to fire Americans and hire foreign workers instead? Of course, it did not happen that way. Outsourcing jobs is part of our free market economy. Recent studies have also found that outsourcing jobs to foreign countries accounts only for several percent of job loss. The outsourcing that creates much more job loss is done within the US. Should we then stop an employer in one state from firing workers and outsourcing jobs to another state? How protectionist should we be?
By the way, Bush has shown some tendencies to protect American jobs. His tariffs on steel saved American jobs, but raised the cost of steel products, so, in the long run, the tariffs hurt far more people than they helped.
Maybe the president did do the actual sending, but he definately isnt discouraging it.
As for Iraq, if the Iraqi people were more involved with the rebuilding of their own country, the it wouldnt look as if the U.S. government was there to make money and exploit them. The iraqi people should be doing there own recontruction not haliburton and other US corps.
Exactly how long after the invasion of Iraq did Bush’s corporate buddies start talking about who was going to do what in the rebuilding process?
Two In The Bush Is Not Needed
I’d rather be like Dan Rather and apologize on my show
than the lying, arrogant president the whole world has come to know.
While many are dying far, far away on foreign blood drenched soil,
was the under-handed reason for war directly linked to the oil?
9/11 was devastating and we wanted to strike back;
even though they didn’t do it, America invaded Iraq.
Better to have a bird in the hand than to have two in the bush.
Terror prevails as insurgency swells. Desperate people are pushed.
I’d prefer to still be focused on the capture of Bin Laden,
or to have given a billion dollars to anyone that got him;
but instead, we enforce our will on an oppressed society
while alienating our allies and uniting our enemies.
North Korea’s nuclear quest and the genocide in Sudan
are practically ignored by us as they don’t benefit Uncle Sam.
So, it’s not about weapons control, human rights or liberty;
the fact is, hypocrisy and greed are disguised as democracy.
Well, codco, those American companies in Iraq are hiring a lot of workers from neighboring countries.
What I think is stranger is that we aren’t employing Iraqis at the same time we are paying twice the market value for insurgents’ guns in Fallujah and other trouble spots. So these guys turn in their old weapons, get twice the street value for the weapon, and then go home to no job. What to do? What to do?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 21, 2004 11:40 AMTwo In The Bush Is Not NeededI’d rather be like Dan Rather and apologize on my show
[Remainder mercifully deleted]
Posted by Ruby McPherson at October 21, 2004 11:04 AM
And we don’t need two more Johns in the White House either.
I’d rather read Ms. Angelou,
With her ponderous lines of verse,
Than slog through liberal diatribe,
Which, startlingly, is worse.
9/11 was devastating and we wanted to strike back; even though they didn’t do it, America invaded Iraq.
I like this.
I’d rather read Ms. Angelou,
With her ponderous lines of verse,
Than slog through liberal diatribe,
Which, startlingly, is worse.
This one needs a little work.
Posted by: Bob Hope at October 21, 2004 02:43 PMBob Hope —
Actually the meter of the second one is good, it’s just lacking in substance and imagery. It’s a catchy bumper sticker.
Posted by: Alejo at October 21, 2004 03:06 PMYea, I also thought the meter in the second was a bit more consistent and a bit closer to iambic pentameter, but I think the last line is a bit torturous to say (in my accent at least), so it loses marks for a weak finish.
Posted by: Bob Hope at October 21, 2004 05:08 PMRepublicans can read?
Oh, I forgoat.
“A girl got a pet goat, but the goat did some things that made her Dad mad.”
lambic pentameter?
Sorry, had to say it
Posted by: Greg at October 21, 2004 08:52 PM> So you think the terrorists who are still
> here, eating Cheetos and watching Survivor
> on their plasma TV’s are buying plane tickets
> so they can go to Iraq and be killed by
> American soldiers in the desert?
Thanks Alejo, for clearly describing just how totally stupid the “flypaper” argument is. It flies in the face of common sense, history, and even contradicts actual facts.
Common sense: If a terrorist really wants more than anything to kill Americans, wouldn’t it be a heck of a lot easier to kill American civilians tourists in places other than Iraq, or even in America, rather than trying to kill well-armed American soldiers on the streets of Falluja?
History: The 9/11 hijackers plotted their mission for six years. They laid careful plans to learn to fly, to learn to mingle with Americans, to thwart immigration laws, to forge documents, and to transfer untraceable money. Similar plots may well be under way today, and they are unlikely to be just cancelled just to give those guys a chance to fight armed Americans in Iraq. Remember, hardly any members of Al Qaeda were Iraqi in the first place.
Fact: Terrorism against our friends and allies around the world is up, even if you exclude the terrorism in Iraq. The terrorists are attacking westerners and friends of freedom all over the world, and they’re doing it more than ever. Bali, Istanbul, Madrid. There’s lots of terrorism in Iraq, that’s true, but terrorism outside of Iraq has not gone down - it’s gone up. Way up.
The terrorists who want to attack America are probably still here, and there are probably more of them coming here all the time. Through his own recklessness and negligence, Bush has probably doubled or tripled the number of terrorists operating against us and our allies. Sure, some of this new crop is operating in Iraq. But it seems likely that for every terrorist that moved into Iraq, there is another new terrorist who is buying tickets to Istanbul, Cairo, Frankfurt, Paris, Madrid, Warsaw, London, or Washington DC.
The scariest thing of all is that the “flypaper” theory is probably more of a “hornets nest” in reality. It’s far more likely that Iraq is producing terrorists who are leaving Iraq and coming here than it is luring terrorists away from here and to Iraq. And worse, these terrorists leaving Iraq are filling their suitcases with weapons that used to belong to the Iraqi armed forces, weapons that Bush & Rumsfeld neglected to tell our own military to secure.
In short, not only is the “flypaper” theory completely moronic, it’s more likely that the opposite is true: that Iraq is sending terrorists outward rather than attracting them inward.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 22, 2004 06:49 AMThe flypaper theory is really dumb.
Terrorist fight gorilla warfare.
This isnt Braveheart, with the armies lines up on either side of a field.
Terrorists will go where they ARENT expected, their not going to running into a conflict with the U.S. army.
They more inclined to attack a place left unguearded, like U.S. airports in september of 2001.
They’ll attack places where the door is left open and unsecured. Right now the uU.S. is unsecure because all your troops are in Iraq.
The thought of all the world terrorists saying “Lets all go to Iraq, for the final showdown” is just a dumb concept made up by the the Bush administration.
First they say that terror is a war on many fronts, not against individual states, then they invade a state and say that it is the central battleground for the war on terror
Who’s the real flip-flopper?
The Bush administration sounds like a kid caught in a lie who keeps trying to make up a new excuse, which keep getting more and more lame.
> First they say that terror is a war on many
> fronts, not against individual states, then
> they invade a state and say that it is the
> central battleground for the war on terror
Damn right. before 9/11, the neocons couldn’t stop talking about how dumb Clinton was for making a big deal about Al Qaeda and stateless terror groups. They argued that the real terrorist threat comes from nation-states, always citing Iraq as the #1 candidate, sometimes Iran as well. This is why Bush’s speeches before 9/11 never mentioned terrorism but spent a lot of energy talking about missle defense. In fact, the few times Bush or anyone in his foreign policy team ever did mention terrorism pre-9/11 was in reference to how important missle defense was!!
Then 9/11 happened, and they realized that talking like that would make them look foolish. So they started saying things like “this is a new kind of war”, but at the same time they simply continued their plans to fight an old-fashioned war against a single man running an isolated state.
This is actually one of the main reasons why the right-leaning, GOP-friendly The New Republic has endorsed Kerry.
-Cf
Their nation has been trading with the world long before the time of Christ, so you think that they can’t tell when they are being taken for a batch of rubes?
27 B.C.E. - Rise of Augustus; rise of Roman Empire and time of Jesus of Nazareth
By “nation” I assume that you are referring to post-Muhammad era and the rise of a cohesive Islamic faith. Before this, Arabia was populated by bedouin, or nomadic, tribes based on goat and camel herding.
632 C.E. - 1st Caliph, Abu Bakr
The first unified Islamic nation to trade with the outside world came almost 700 years after the age of Christ.
Posted by: semper at October 22, 2004 04:06 PMHey Troy,
The outsourcing that creates much more job loss is done within the US.
I’ve never heard that. Do you have a link?
When you read the latest entry, you can feel the inescapable joy the author felt at such simple things as getting a passport and traveling outside Iraq for the first time.
Ha! If I was an Iraqi, I’d be happy to get out of Iraq, too. :)
Seriously, I just read an article recently where all thye Iraqi Christians are trying to flee the country, and many of the wealthy and educated Iraqis are trying to do the same - they’re tired of living in fear of getting shot, bombed, and kidnapped. Oh, and they’d like some electricity, running water, and sewage disposal, too.
And the whole, “we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” is a crock. If anyone doesn’t think bin Laden isn’t planning the next strike on the US, they’re dreaming.
Unlike Bush, bin Laden didn’t get distracted by Iraq.
Alright, enough!!!
We are in Iraq because there are indeed ties between Iraq and Al Quaida, there have been ties that have been known and documented all throughout the Clinton Administration, possibly even further back than that.
I’ve argued this until I’m blue in the face.
Now I going to give you some documents/stories/web sites, etc that verify all of this. Why the media is doing what it’s doing, is beyond me… but it is clear that “jounalistic integrity” has become an oxymoron.
Posted June 01, 2004 on The Miami Herald.com by
Paul Crespo; Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Besides Abu Mussab al Zaqawi, (he’s the one be-heading everyone he can in Iraq now.
Some ties between terrorism and Iraq/Hussein are;
Palestinian Terrorist Abu Nidal. “The Abu Nidal organization killed or maimed more than 1,200 people in twenty countries, INCLUDING, the airborne bombing of of a TWA airliner in 1974!! And the attack on a TWA counter at Rome’s Leonardi Da Vinci Airport in 1986. Nidal had taken refuge in Iraq since 1999.” (Nidal) “Reportedly killed himself with FOUR bullets to the head in Baghdad in August 2002.”
This man, had he been captured, could have made the ties between terror and Iraq, crystal clear, alas.
From the same article reads; “Khala Khadar al Salahat, another terrorist with ties to (Abu) Nidal had furnished Libyan agents the plastic explosives that destroyed Pan American flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.”
“US Special forces also captured terrorist Abu Abbas in April, 2003, just outside Baghdad. He had been living under Iraqi protection since 2002. Abbas planned the the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro…” that’s the one where the wheelcahir bound american was shot and dumped into the Mediterranean, if you recall.
“Italian authorities had detained Abbas briefly at the time but released him because, according to Italy’s then Prime Minister Benito Craxi, “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport.” Abbas later died of natural causes..”
It goes on and on people…
“Ramzi Yousef,(who) ochestrated the first World Trade Center bombing, also entered the US on an Iraqi passport.”
There is a comprehensive website, thats very well laid out in web format at http://www.husseinandterror.com/
This site is the work of D Murdock, Media Fellow Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
This site is excellent as it provides URL links to supporting documents, sources, bibliography…you name it.
Supporting stories and or documents include sources like;
The Associated Press-USA Today.com
week of 08/19/2002
PBS Frontline
“Gunning for Saddam…”11/08/2001
The Wall Street Journal
“Saddam’s Files” 05/27/2004
Sheila Mac Vicar ABC News
“America’s Most Wanted’- Fugitive
Terrorists” 07/27/1994
Portsmouth Herald NH 08/22/2002
Hyneck Kmonicek, Czech Ambassador to
The United Nations, letter to
Atty James Beasley, Jr 02/24/2003
This letter states unequivocably that Mohamed Atta, one of the terrorists who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the WTC on 09/11/2001, had “contact with (an) official of Iraqi intelligence, Mr Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir”, who was expelled from the Czech Republic on 04/22/2001, on the basis of activities which were not compatible with his Diplomatic status. The letter is viewable in it’s entirety on husseinandterror.com, go to the END NOTES, Item # 21, and click on “CLICK HERE”.
The most comprehensive and capsulated piece is an article from the 11/24/2003, Volume 0009, Issue 11 of The Weekly Standard, by Stephen F Hayes, it is based upon “leaked classified Intelligence Data”, a memo dated 10/27/2003 from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockerfeller, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Commitee. The evidence is clear; you can access a link to this story which quotes the document verbatim;
“According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi Intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Quaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the IIS and al Quaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Quaeda leader (Ayman al) Zawahiri were at the meeting- the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between IIS (Iraqi intelligence service) and al Quaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of alQuaeda would visit Baghdad where they would meet the IIS cheif an a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam (Hussein) insisted the relationship with alQuaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddamm (Hussein) made a pesonel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.”
This particular document is very decisive in it’s findinngs.
And if that’s not enough for you;
As reported at CBSNEWS.com dateline NEW YORK May, 7th, 2003; US Federal District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. ordered jointly that Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the former Iraqi government, to pay the families of two Sept 11 victims, $104 million (in US dollars).
This is US Court precedent, set by a sitting US District Federal Judge, appointed by President William J Clinton.
Is anyone else P O’ed at the so called “News Media”?!?! If you actually take the time, and check it out…you will be completely convinced.
There is alot more out there. And it’s not that hard to find. You just have to be willing to question the load of #@$% you’ve been fed up to now.
James B Templin
Reno, Nv
The evidence you provide is quite compelling and enlightening, although I would bring up two further security concerns regarding terrorist training camps and recruiting efforts underway in Central/South America and in Malaysia. I personally am more concerned the next wave of assaults will not come from Iraq, but from supposed “allies” in Malaysia and across the U.S./Mexican border, passing themselves off as Hispanics or Southeast Asia executives. There are plenty of folks in our own hemisphere who are about to get at us, perhaps due in part to the mess that is still going on in Central America. Who knows? I wouldn’t be surprised if Fidel was doing something and we weren’t aware of it.
That terrorism is the virus which threatens civilization is without question. What is the question is whether this virus. like rabies, is merely in its incubation period or if it is at maturity. either prospect is frightening, although I do have to credit Kerry on one thing, that doubling our special forces is definitely a step in the right direction. Yes, there is a strategic goal to the war on terror, but it is going to require, at least as I believe, a more tactical approach. I am frankly upset with both Bush and Kerry because neither seem willing to accelerate the SuperSoldier 2020 program (and if you want to see it, I’ll provide a link) which would really give our military the fighting power it needs, not to mention the ultimate in infiltration/covert penetration capabilities, a truly grand army of the Republic which DEFINITELY can get them before they get us.
Posted by: Emmarus at October 24, 2004 01:19 AMI don’t find the “evidence” compelling at all since it’s a Bush apologist site with links to a bunch of Bush apologist editorials. In fact, the Atta claim and the MacVicar claim have been debunked repeatedly. The rest are tenuous claims of decades old connections that have nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11.
Emmarus, I’d love to see a link to the SuperSoldier 2020 Program. I too am impressed by Kerry’s plan to upgrade the military and also to train more civil affairs and MP troops to help in nation building which we will undoubtably be engaged in in North Korea in the near future.
Pundit-
As promised:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/n07272004_2004072705.html
www.scienceblog.com/community/ article3501.html
marsnews.com/…/08/09/ future_warrior_suit_exhibits_super_powers.html
These links also feature the 2010 system, although you will note its similarities to the modern APS systems in use today.
I was reading a technology link somewhere about a PPCS (personal photothermal camoflague system) that is supposed to be WAY out there as far as tech goes, I’m still trying to find some info on this. Right now it’s just murmoring on the science lines.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Emmarus at October 24, 2004 04:47 AMAmerican Pundit said
Seriously, I just read an article recently where all thye Iraqi Christians are trying to flee the country, and many of the wealthy and educated Iraqis are trying to do the same - they’re tired of living in fear of getting shot, bombed, and kidnapped. Oh, and they’d like some electricity, running water, and sewage disposal, too.
___________________________________
There was a good article in Newsweek about the entire Iraqi Christian mess, many of whom are Coptic or Syrian Orthodox (my understanding is that Tariq Aziz is a Coptic Christian). What is more suprising is how many American Christians don’t realize that “Allah” is also the name used by Arab Christians for God, since the only time most Americans hear it used is by Muslim followers.
Unbeleivable…
Look, the data goes back to 1974.
The terrorist Abu Nidal held an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Multiple infamous terrorists have been either captured or known to have been under Iraqi protection since pre-“Desert Storm”.
The Czech Republic is not a “Bush supporter”, as you so blithely lump all of this corroborative data. None of this has been debunked, the 9/11 commission said that they “should not be considered the definative completion of these questions…” they in fact, did not state that there was “no connection” with Iraq and al Quaeda, they simply implied that is was not enough to “prove it” at the World Court.
This is a huge distinction!
The US legal precedent set in NY District court, was made by a Clinton appointee!!! Bush supporters!!???!!
Aren’t you tired of being lied to by the media!? Or do you only object to lies, when they are made by people other than those sympathectic to your view?
It flat pisses me off that our so called “journalist’s” decide what to spoon ‘feed’ us, “bite by bite”!!
And 2020 is a long ways off. What about Kerry’s plan to add 40,000 troops? Plus double Special Forces, (another 20,000)??? And he’s accusing Bush of planning to bring back the Draft?!?! Kerry’s plans REQUIRE a draft, for them to be plausible. There are not 60,000 raw recruits waiting in the wings to “sign up”.
Oh, and by the way?!?! It takes approximately 3 to 5 years to properly train a Special Forces Soldier… and they ones who make it are in the 10 percentile… (that means 90 % of the applicants, wash out.) C’mon man, use your head!!!
James B Templin
Reno, Nv
> By “nation” I assume that you are referring to
> post-Muhammad era and the rise of a cohesive
> Islamic faith.
Henri was talking about Iraq, not the whole Islamic world. He was referring to the early civilized peoples of Mesopotamia, such as the Sumerians and Babylonians, who predate Christianity and Islam by several thousands of years.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 24, 2004 07:53 PMJames B Templin wrote:
And 2020 is a long ways off.
The year, maybe, not the technology driving the weaponry. Check the links.
Trust me, it’s like comparing a Colt revolver to an M-16. It’s THAT drastic of a change. And this suit can take repeated direct hits from one at point blank range, not to mention the increased protection it offers against shrapnel.
Not to mention the PPCS that is supposedly in development.
>What about Kerry’s plan to add 40,000 troops? Plus double Special Forces, (another 20,000)??? And he’s accusing Bush of planning to bring back the Draft?!?! Kerry’s plans REQUIRE a draft, for them to be plausible.
May I politely say I don’t recall ever saying I was afraid to spill my blood if called upon. I don’t relish the fact that many young people, myself included, may have to die if things begin to get out of hand.
Perhaps a reconsildation (i.e. a total systems upgrade, meaning actually putting all this fancy hi-tech stuff into mainstream use, and reducing our overseas infrastructure) would be better than either a draft or keeping the status quo.
>There are not 60,000 raw recruits waiting in the wings to “sign up”.
So herein lies the quandary: we can either a) continue to overextend our forces (while enemies such as North Korea plot to take advantage of our reduced domestic force
or we can institute a draft (proposed by Rangel). Or we can reconsolidate, work to boost the general militias in countries where we maintain a large military presence (such as Germany, Turkey and possibly Japan, and I know this is going to open up a can of worms) and let the local governments take over. We have our hands in too many bowls, I think.
>>Oh, and by the way?!?! It takes approximately 3 to 5 years to properly train a Special Forces Soldier
Then maybe we’d better get started. I have a friend who spent a good deal of time in South Korea keeping our boys over there safe, and he told me that the REGULARS of the South Korean army are comparable to some of our special forces (such as Force Recon).
Obviously, we might need to reinstitute some major overhauls in our training regiment.
>>>and they ones who make it are in the 10 percentile… (that means 90 % of the applicants, wash out.) C’mon man, use your head!!!
I am, that’s why I support Kerry’s plan. There are plenty of other countries besides South Korea (Greece, Israel, the French Foreign Legion) that maintain proportionately larger contingents of special forces. That is because they HAVE to, and that is the way we have to look at this - that we also have to be prepared for things to come just as they have.
You make some good points, I just disagree with the logistics of your argument.
The Czech Republic is not a “Bush supporter”, as you so blithely lump all of this corroborative data. None of this has been debunked
Atta was never in Prague. The Czechs say they were mistaken.
No WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful terrorist connections. Even Zarqawi, before the invasion, was operating in US/Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq. In fact, Bush could have killed Zarqawi at any point before the invasion, but preferred to use him as an “example” of Saddam/terrorist collusion,
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. The lab in Kirma was the administration’s “smoking gun” tying Saddam to al Qaeda. Without the lab, there would be no link with which to convince the UN and the American people.Posted by: American Pundit at October 25, 2004 07:40 AM
