""The American people have spoken and they have demanded change. They want, they deserve and they are going to get a new direction -- at home and in Iraq. - Reid: The American People Have Demanded a New Direction,"
Yesssss.
We can STOP fighting the Islamofascist insurgency in Iraq,so that it can have peace.
And we can START fighting the Islamofacsist insurgency here in the USA.
Assuming that Speaker Lugosi, Majority Leader Weed, and the Esteemed Congressman Murtha haven't outlawed the tools, rhetoric and acts of self-defense.
See y'all at the Tslamic re-education camp...(they'll call it "Sensitivity Training").
It puts this story, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228636,00.html in focus, doesn't it?
"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House"
No, it won't, DJ. Things may get bad for a while, but in the long-term the Jihadis will be defeated. These people are the worst fighters in the world. All it takes is will.
You write of the end result, Sarah. I wrote of the path to that end.
It takes will to use weapons. At present, the weapons we fight against are small arms, RPG's, rockets, and IED's, and the fight happens in Afganistan and Iraq. When the weapons we fight against are nukes, chemical, biological, and/or radiological, what weapons will we use? When we fight here, what weapons will we use?
What the election reversal of 2006 has started, and the possible reversal of 2008 would complete, is a delay while the Jihadis arm and train further, and the softening of will that will allow the Jihadis to bring the fight here.
There have been no terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11. Instead, we have carried the fight to the terrorists where they are, in the Middle East. I think bringing the war here is aptly described as a "new direction".
Look to the news of today from Great Britain and tell me I'm off base.
Why is it when people come in to the comments to throw barbs, they so seldom use a real name or leave a valid email address? Are they just not interested in dialog?
(Yes, that was rhetorical.)
This reminds me of my favorite riposte from a Slashdot thread:
Anonymous: "I wish all you gun-toting fucktards would just go create your own nation."
Respondent: "We did. Who the hell let you in here?" (Justin Buist)
"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House"
Ah, just ignore 'em and they'll go away. Yawn. Zzzzz ...
OK, I see what you mean, DJ. But I think we're talking about inevitabilities here -- both the election reversal and that Jihadis will use it as an opportunity to bring the war here. It's the only way that Americans are going to develop the will to fight this war to win.
I recall this item from Albert Speer's memoirs Inside the Third Reich:
"Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."
Islam is now invading Europe, if that is the proper term, largely without battle, and its followers survive the climate just fine. Some are attempting that same subjugation by terrorism, which is only another form of "the sword".
I cannot help but reiterate the question that no one has yet answered: "How many people will have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic terrorists before the Democrats will admit that the threat is real, and that the President, as Chief Executive Officer of the Government and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, should carry the fight to the terrorists, wherever they are?" Remember, any response that is not a number is also not an answer.
Question: How many mistakes must the CEO make before the Executive Board, i.e. the people, hire a new CEO?
I don't think there is need here to fully recount the events since 9/11 and earlier.
Suffice it to say that Dems understand well that there is a threat. I'm discounting the very small percentage who have been anti-war since the beginning.
Among the majority, though, I think it's been well publicized that the Dem's general position has been ...
Afghanistan was the right thing to do but we didn't finish the fight.
Instead, attention was turned to Iraq, which the Dem's do not believe was a center of terrorism at the time, at least the kind that was of immediate threat to the U.S.
No need again to say what a nasty guy Saddam was, but there are lots of nasty guys out there.
In short, it's the prosecution of the war that is most objectionable to the Dems.
For now, regardless of who is in power here, we have a major mess with no good solutions on the horizon, but with an ongoing war against the forces that would destroy us.
The Bush's war has destroyed both the Republican Party and liberty in this country. To defeat the "Islamofascists" is easy- let them fight amongst each other. All they want is to be left alone- fighting them will only bring down this country, and they will end up winning. When left to their own devices, they don't care about us, and they will end up fighting each other to extintion. The war was a stupid idea, the reasons for fighting it all lies, and now the GOP has paid the price. It hasn't made us safer, but even more in danger- and not just from terrorists, but from our own government. Sure, maybe Bush has been benevolent with the unconstitutional powers he has been given, but how do you think Hilary will be? Do you think she won't use the illegal spying to follow pro-gun groups, and other conservative groups? Her husband used the IRS to attack them, and now, his wife has much more powers. This is a sad time when conservatives care more about waging war against a weak and insignificant enemy than about saving liberty here in our own country.
"OtherWhiteMatt," your homepage link doesn't work, and I think I may have to crank out another überpost countering the idiotic arguments you parrot in your comment, such as:
"To defeat the "Islamofascists" is easy- let them fight amongst each other. All they want is to be left alone...
The war was a stupid idea, the reasons for fighting it all lies....
And others.
Was no one paying attention during the build-up? How did such a large proportion of the media develop such a selective memory, and why does the public accept these talking-points hook, line, and sinker?
I sympathize with your closing comments, I really do, but the invasion of Iraq was justified and necessary, and if we treat it like we treated Vietnam, this time they WILL follow us home.
It's a trick question, sort of.
o
To respond with a number is to admit that the principle is correct, and to quibble thereafter about how bad it must get before the proper response should be given.
To respond with endless argument instead of a number is to hold, implicitly, that the principle is incorrect, without having the gonads to admit so explicitly, or it is to attempt to delay admitting explicitly that the principle is correct while milking the controversy for all the short-term political gain that can be had.
The Dimocrats once admitted, individually and en masse, that the war was necessary. We have lots of quotes from Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and the others to prove it. Once the war started, they nearly all began ranting against the war, and they nearly all changed their story lines to the effect that they weren't really for it when they said they were. For them, the prospect of short-term political gain won out over defending the country.
So, I don't accept your notion that it's the prosecution of the war that is most objectionable to the Dems. That is the current mantra, but how many times have we heard from them that we should never have started the war in the first place? I think that, for the past three years or so, the Dims have been concerned only about getting back into office. Hence my question.
How bad will it have to get befre they will agree that we should carry the fight to the enemy wherever he is? And, how sick is the mindset of the majority of those who voted last week that we should have to endure such simply so the Dimocrats can be in charge when they finally wake up?
That's why they attacked the World Trade Center? That's why they attacked the U.S.S. Cole? That's why they attacked our embassies? That's why they attacked our Marine barracks? That's why they riot and burn vehicles in France? That's why they bomb trains in England?
To borrow and paraphrase from Margo Howard so as to point out the obvious: If the Islamic terrorists laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the United States laid down its arms, there would be no more United States, no more western democracies, and no more non-Islamic way of life.
All they want is to be left alone, huh? They can have that any time they want, just by not attacking others, and they know it. But, they don't stop, and they state quite loudly that they will not stop, which means they don't want it.
Kevin, you can lead someone to knowledge, but you cannot make him think. Even so, I'm sure we'll enjoy what you have to say about it.
How bad will it have to get before they will agree that we should carry the fight to the enemy wherever he is?
We are in agreement, unless you are talking of indiscriminate carpetbombing every radical Islamist enclave all over the world.
I'm sorry you didn't address my explanation in my earlier post.
Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?
This is what I mean by prosecution of the war.
This, I think, is the position of most Dem's: for the action in Afghanistan, against the action in Iraq, always for the troops, and always against bunglers and ideologues. Against those who hung a hero, C. Powell, a man who knew how to do this, out to dry.
So now that we arrive at stalemate in this discussion, where do we go from here in Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan? More troops? Less troops? Same troop levels? Different strategy? Wait for what Baker says? I surely don't know. Does anyone know?
"So now that we arrive at stalemate in this discussion, where do we go from here in Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan? More troops? Less troops? Same troop levels? Different strategy? Wait for what Baker says? I surely don't know. Does anyone know?"
Well, apparently the Democrats who will soon be in a leadership position will say "none of the above." Not less troops, but "phased withdrawal" - i.e.: retreat and abandonment.
"Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?"
The "clearly defined enemy" is radical islam. I might very well take the several days required to put together a post on this entire topic, but in the mean time I strongly recommend that you read Steven Den Beste's pre-invasion "strategic overview".
I'm sorry you didn't address my explanation in my earlier post.
I did address your explanation in your earlier post. Indeed, I rejected it.
This, I think, is the position of most Dem's: for the action in Afghanistan, against the action in Iraq, always for the troops, and always against bunglers and ideologues. Against those who hung a hero, C. Powell, a man who knew how to do this, out to dry.
Nope. I don't buy it.
They were "for" the action in Afganistan. They remain "for" that action because they can't manage any political gain by being against it. Afganistan was, and is, al Quaida's home base.
They were "for" the action in Iraq until they were "against" it, which they became once they decided to use such opposition for political gain.
They are not always "for" the troops. Some have never been "for" the troops. For example, despite his blather, and as evidenced by his miscues and his blather, John Kerry loathes the military, and Hillary Clinton makes John Kerry appear as gung-ho as Norman Schwarzkopf. Try reading Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, USAF (Ret.)
They are not always "against" bunglers and ideologues. Indeed many of them are bunglers and/or ideologues. Do the names Kerry and Kennedy ring a bell? How about the New York Times? Dan Rather? Have you read the news that Hillary Clinton is already talking up her pending campaign to force socialized health care down our throats?
And, finally, what does Colin Powell have to do with anything? He retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was no higher rank or military office he could aspire to. He could have been President but he declined, stating he didn't "feel the call" to do so. The man is almost universally admired in this country, and justifiably so. How has he been "hung out to dry"?
Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?
This is what I mean by prosecution of the war.
You confuse "prosecution of the war" with "justification of the war". One prosecutes a war by carring the fight to the enemy. That means putting the right people (i.e. senior command) in charge of it, giving them a defined objective, providing the proper mix and quantity of trained personnel and equipment, and then getting out of their way so they can do the job.
We attacked Iraq after we attacked Afganistan. We had more than sufficient forces to do both, as proven by the simple fact that the military forces and the gubmints of both countries were crushed in short order. The enemy, namely Islamic extremists, were then, and are now, in both places. We attacked Iraq, as President Bush stated in plain English, before Hussein became an imminent threat. (Selective amnesia, was it?) Given what we have learned since then about his nuclear ambitions and timetable, I am tickled pink that we did so.
This war will take decades to finish. I do not expect to live to see the end of it, and I'm 53 years old. To win the struggle will require a quite radical change in the way a fifth of the population of the world thinks about the religious claptrap they've been saddled with for almost fourteen centuries. That will take generations to accomplish.
I can think of only one way to accomplish it. Kill the extremists wherever they are, all the while otherwise demonstrating to everyone else that freedom, especially freedom from self-imposed religious persecution, is a wonderful thing. If you don't understand the concept, or you aren't aware just how successful it can be, ask anyone who immigrated here from Iraq or Iran.
To borrow from Churchill, we haven't yet seen the end of the beginning, and the Dimocrats already are not just willing, but intending to give up, and all just to get back in office.
Everybody might want to read this piece at Mostly Cajun, too.
Very interesting, Kevin. I've read and heard such analyses before, some directly from people who have been there, done that.
Contrast this statement:
I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization.
with my statement:
To win the struggle will require a quite radical change in the way a fifth of the population of the world thinks about the religious claptrap they've been saddled with for almost fourteen centuries. That will take generations to accomplish.
Yup The religion of peace, Wanna feel the peace. Try this.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Feel it???
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/11/new-direction.html (26 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Small Minor;
""The American people have spoken and they have demanded change. They want, they deserve and they are going to get a new direction -- at home and in Iraq. - Reid: The American People Have Demanded a New Direction,"
Yesssss.
We can STOP fighting the Islamofascist insurgency in Iraq,so that it can have peace.
And we can START fighting the Islamofacsist insurgency here in the USA.
Assuming that Speaker Lugosi, Majority Leader Weed, and the Esteemed Congressman Murtha haven't outlawed the tools, rhetoric and acts of self-defense.
See y'all at the Tslamic re-education camp...(they'll call it "Sensitivity Training").
Regards;
sarc/ (I hope)
It puts this story, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228636,00.html in focus, doesn't it?
"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House"
Perhaps it will be in that new direction.
No, it won't, DJ. Things may get bad for a while, but in the long-term the Jihadis will be defeated. These people are the worst fighters in the world. All it takes is will.
The only good news I can see is that so many of the dims live in thelarge or port cities...
You write of the end result, Sarah. I wrote of the path to that end.
It takes will to use weapons. At present, the weapons we fight against are small arms, RPG's, rockets, and IED's, and the fight happens in Afganistan and Iraq. When the weapons we fight against are nukes, chemical, biological, and/or radiological, what weapons will we use? When we fight here, what weapons will we use?
What the election reversal of 2006 has started, and the possible reversal of 2008 would complete, is a delay while the Jihadis arm and train further, and the softening of will that will allow the Jihadis to bring the fight here.
There have been no terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11. Instead, we have carried the fight to the terrorists where they are, in the Middle East. I think bringing the war here is aptly described as a "new direction".
Look to the news of today from Great Britain and tell me I'm off base.
Wow. I'm glad I don't live next door to any of you. What a xenophobic frightened comment stream you all have created.
"Xenophobic. You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means." - Edited by siteowner.
group responsibility:
"Wow. I'm glad I don't live next door to any of you. What a xenophobic frightened comment stream you all have created."
We'd be just as happy having the like of you not living next door to any of us, either, chum.
Problem is, we're stuck with eacj other...unless, of course, you'd be so kind as to emigrate.
I hear Afghanistan is a multicultural paradise...why not move there?
Minimal Regards;
Why is it when people come in to the comments to throw barbs, they so seldom use a real name or leave a valid email address? Are they just not interested in dialog?
(Yes, that was rhetorical.)
This reminds me of my favorite riposte from a Slashdot thread:
Anonymous: "I wish all you gun-toting fucktards would just go create your own nation."
Respondent: "We did. Who the hell let you in here?" (Justin Buist)
xenophobia: n. an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers
Yup, that's us, alright. Irrational lot, aren't we?
"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House"
Ah, just ignore 'em and they'll go away. Yawn. Zzzzz ...
OK, I see what you mean, DJ. But I think we're talking about inevitabilities here -- both the election reversal and that Jihadis will use it as an opportunity to bring the war here. It's the only way that Americans are going to develop the will to fight this war to win.
I recall this item from Albert Speer's memoirs Inside the Third Reich:
"Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."
Islam is now invading Europe, if that is the proper term, largely without battle, and its followers survive the climate just fine. Some are attempting that same subjugation by terrorism, which is only another form of "the sword".
I cannot help but reiterate the question that no one has yet answered: "How many people will have to die as a result of attacks carried out in this country by Islamic terrorists before the Democrats will admit that the threat is real, and that the President, as Chief Executive Officer of the Government and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, should carry the fight to the terrorists, wherever they are?" Remember, any response that is not a number is also not an answer.
Uh, I think it was a "Nude Erection" not a New Direction.
Something's lost in translation.
DJ,
Answer: 1
Question: How many mistakes must the CEO make before the Executive Board, i.e. the people, hire a new CEO?
I don't think there is need here to fully recount the events since 9/11 and earlier.
Suffice it to say that Dems understand well that there is a threat. I'm discounting the very small percentage who have been anti-war since the beginning.
Among the majority, though, I think it's been well publicized that the Dem's general position has been ...
Afghanistan was the right thing to do but we didn't finish the fight.
Instead, attention was turned to Iraq, which the Dem's do not believe was a center of terrorism at the time, at least the kind that was of immediate threat to the U.S.
No need again to say what a nasty guy Saddam was, but there are lots of nasty guys out there.
In short, it's the prosecution of the war that is most objectionable to the Dems.
For now, regardless of who is in power here, we have a major mess with no good solutions on the horizon, but with an ongoing war against the forces that would destroy us.
The Bush's war has destroyed both the Republican Party and liberty in this country. To defeat the "Islamofascists" is easy- let them fight amongst each other. All they want is to be left alone- fighting them will only bring down this country, and they will end up winning. When left to their own devices, they don't care about us, and they will end up fighting each other to extintion. The war was a stupid idea, the reasons for fighting it all lies, and now the GOP has paid the price. It hasn't made us safer, but even more in danger- and not just from terrorists, but from our own government. Sure, maybe Bush has been benevolent with the unconstitutional powers he has been given, but how do you think Hilary will be? Do you think she won't use the illegal spying to follow pro-gun groups, and other conservative groups? Her husband used the IRS to attack them, and now, his wife has much more powers. This is a sad time when conservatives care more about waging war against a weak and insignificant enemy than about saving liberty here in our own country.
Kevin, their remarks were all misinterpreted by the press. They're all looking to move America in a "nude erection".
Bruce: "US Citizen" beat you to the punchline.
"OtherWhiteMatt," your homepage link doesn't work, and I think I may have to crank out another überpost countering the idiotic arguments you parrot in your comment, such as:
"To defeat the "Islamofascists" is easy- let them fight amongst each other. All they want is to be left alone...
The war was a stupid idea, the reasons for fighting it all lies....
And others.
Was no one paying attention during the build-up? How did such a large proportion of the media develop such a selective memory, and why does the public accept these talking-points hook, line, and sinker?
I sympathize with your closing comments, I really do, but the invasion of Iraq was justified and necessary, and if we treat it like we treated Vietnam, this time they WILL follow us home.
Peter:
It's a trick question, sort of.
o
To respond with a number is to admit that the principle is correct, and to quibble thereafter about how bad it must get before the proper response should be given.
To respond with endless argument instead of a number is to hold, implicitly, that the principle is incorrect, without having the gonads to admit so explicitly, or it is to attempt to delay admitting explicitly that the principle is correct while milking the controversy for all the short-term political gain that can be had.
The Dimocrats once admitted, individually and en masse, that the war was necessary. We have lots of quotes from Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and the others to prove it. Once the war started, they nearly all began ranting against the war, and they nearly all changed their story lines to the effect that they weren't really for it when they said they were. For them, the prospect of short-term political gain won out over defending the country.
So, I don't accept your notion that it's the prosecution of the war that is most objectionable to the Dems. That is the current mantra, but how many times have we heard from them that we should never have started the war in the first place? I think that, for the past three years or so, the Dims have been concerned only about getting back into office. Hence my question.
How bad will it have to get befre they will agree that we should carry the fight to the enemy wherever he is? And, how sick is the mindset of the majority of those who voted last week that we should have to endure such simply so the Dimocrats can be in charge when they finally wake up?
All they want is to be left alone ...
That's why they attacked the World Trade Center? That's why they attacked the U.S.S. Cole? That's why they attacked our embassies? That's why they attacked our Marine barracks? That's why they riot and burn vehicles in France? That's why they bomb trains in England?
To borrow and paraphrase from Margo Howard so as to point out the obvious: If the Islamic terrorists laid down their arms, there would be no more violence. If the United States laid down its arms, there would be no more United States, no more western democracies, and no more non-Islamic way of life.
All they want is to be left alone, huh? They can have that any time they want, just by not attacking others, and they know it. But, they don't stop, and they state quite loudly that they will not stop, which means they don't want it.
Kevin, you can lead someone to knowledge, but you cannot make him think. Even so, I'm sure we'll enjoy what you have to say about it.
DJ
How bad will it have to get before they will agree that we should carry the fight to the enemy wherever he is?
We are in agreement, unless you are talking of indiscriminate carpetbombing every radical Islamist enclave all over the world.
I'm sorry you didn't address my explanation in my earlier post.
Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?
This is what I mean by prosecution of the war.
This, I think, is the position of most Dem's: for the action in Afghanistan, against the action in Iraq, always for the troops, and always against bunglers and ideologues. Against those who hung a hero, C. Powell, a man who knew how to do this, out to dry.
So now that we arrive at stalemate in this discussion, where do we go from here in Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan? More troops? Less troops? Same troop levels? Different strategy? Wait for what Baker says? I surely don't know. Does anyone know?
"So now that we arrive at stalemate in this discussion, where do we go from here in Iraq, and for that matter Afghanistan? More troops? Less troops? Same troop levels? Different strategy? Wait for what Baker says? I surely don't know. Does anyone know?"
Well, apparently the Democrats who will soon be in a leadership position will say "none of the above." Not less troops, but "phased withdrawal" - i.e.: retreat and abandonment.
"Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?"
The "clearly defined enemy" is radical islam. I might very well take the several days required to put together a post on this entire topic, but in the mean time I strongly recommend that you read Steven Den Beste's pre-invasion "strategic overview".
Peter:
I'm sorry you didn't address my explanation in my earlier post.
I did address your explanation in your earlier post. Indeed, I rejected it.
This, I think, is the position of most Dem's: for the action in Afghanistan, against the action in Iraq, always for the troops, and always against bunglers and ideologues. Against those who hung a hero, C. Powell, a man who knew how to do this, out to dry.
Nope. I don't buy it.
They were "for" the action in Afganistan. They remain "for" that action because they can't manage any political gain by being against it. Afganistan was, and is, al Quaida's home base.
They were "for" the action in Iraq until they were "against" it, which they became once they decided to use such opposition for political gain.
They are not always "for" the troops. Some have never been "for" the troops. For example, despite his blather, and as evidenced by his miscues and his blather, John Kerry loathes the military, and Hillary Clinton makes John Kerry appear as gung-ho as Norman Schwarzkopf. Try reading Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, USAF (Ret.)
They are not always "against" bunglers and ideologues. Indeed many of them are bunglers and/or ideologues. Do the names Kerry and Kennedy ring a bell? How about the New York Times? Dan Rather? Have you read the news that Hillary Clinton is already talking up her pending campaign to force socialized health care down our throats?
And, finally, what does Colin Powell have to do with anything? He retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was no higher rank or military office he could aspire to. He could have been President but he declined, stating he didn't "feel the call" to do so. The man is almost universally admired in this country, and justifiably so. How has he been "hung out to dry"?
Why did we attack Iraq when we did? Was the clearly defined enemy, those who attacked the Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, in Iraq? Was Iraq an imminent threat to our nation? Had the job been completed in Afghanistan?
This is what I mean by prosecution of the war.
You confuse "prosecution of the war" with "justification of the war". One prosecutes a war by carring the fight to the enemy. That means putting the right people (i.e. senior command) in charge of it, giving them a defined objective, providing the proper mix and quantity of trained personnel and equipment, and then getting out of their way so they can do the job.
We attacked Iraq after we attacked Afganistan. We had more than sufficient forces to do both, as proven by the simple fact that the military forces and the gubmints of both countries were crushed in short order. The enemy, namely Islamic extremists, were then, and are now, in both places. We attacked Iraq, as President Bush stated in plain English, before Hussein became an imminent threat. (Selective amnesia, was it?) Given what we have learned since then about his nuclear ambitions and timetable, I am tickled pink that we did so.
This war will take decades to finish. I do not expect to live to see the end of it, and I'm 53 years old. To win the struggle will require a quite radical change in the way a fifth of the population of the world thinks about the religious claptrap they've been saddled with for almost fourteen centuries. That will take generations to accomplish.
I can think of only one way to accomplish it. Kill the extremists wherever they are, all the while otherwise demonstrating to everyone else that freedom, especially freedom from self-imposed religious persecution, is a wonderful thing. If you don't understand the concept, or you aren't aware just how successful it can be, ask anyone who immigrated here from Iraq or Iran.
To borrow from Churchill, we haven't yet seen the end of the beginning, and the Dimocrats already are not just willing, but intending to give up, and all just to get back in office.
Everybody might want to read this piece at Mostly Cajun, too.
group responsibilty?,
(laughing, loudly!)
Your pathetic name is all I needed to read.
Please, read Ezekial 25:17 for me, will ya? Think REAL hard about what it is that I mean. REAL. HARD.
Oh, before you use that Fundy pejorative you are reaching for, know I am an avowed Atheist.
Everybody might want to read this piece at Mostly Cajun, too.
Very interesting, Kevin. I've read and heard such analyses before, some directly from people who have been there, done that.
Contrast this statement:
I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization.
with my statement:
To win the struggle will require a quite radical change in the way a fifth of the population of the world thinks about the religious claptrap they've been saddled with for almost fourteen centuries. That will take generations to accomplish.
It's gonna be a long struggle, aint' it?
Yes. And trying to leave the field now strikes me as myopia on the ragged edge of blindness.
Yup The religion of peace, Wanna feel the peace. Try this.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Feel it???
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>