Posted on 02/12/2008 9:29:34 PM PST by MNJohnnie
“Profiles in Courage,” Hillary and Obama are no-shows for the vote.
Of course it is relevant.
First: When a country is attacked, the very first thing it needs to do is to control its own territory and secure it from the enemy. It is now six years later - longer than the entire duration of World War II - and we have not yet achieved this basic goal. The toll for the failure: 20,000 Americans killed per year. 1 million sex crimes by foreigners on US soil. A trillion dollars from the treasury, mostly - and insanely - in the form of direct subsidies.
Second: The mission is no longer the original mission which did deserve support. The original mission was payback for 9/11. In my opinion, we didn’t give it anywhere near hard enough. The mission is now nation building. But we have our own nation to build - our own, and it’s bursting at the seams. At a now $400 billion account deficit per year and over $9 trillion total public debt (projected, in actuality probably half a trillion per year, and when you factor in Social Security IOUs for which the money does not actually exist, tens of trillions total), not counting unprecedented household debt and the resulting economic fallout, the United States cannot afford to continue to rebuild two other nations. It is time for those nations to take on the responsibility to build themselves, and for our soldiers to do what soldiers are trained to do - kill enemies.
Third: Besides the wide open border, this war policy has a number of peculiar features to it which have no adequate explanation. You can start with the fact that we are acting explicitly under UN authorization, as if granting that we do not have the right to defend ourselves on our own. Half a billion dollars to the Palestinians, this year... untold, unaccounted billions in each year prior for many many years now. Pressuring Israel not to take care of business like they ought and need to do - they are fighting the same enemy, are they not? Our Secretary of State insisting on the sanctity of the Egyptian border. Our continued support of the Muslim entity of Kosovo and other apparently deliberate provocations against the Orthodox nations, potentially extremely valuable allies, ones who have fought our enemies before. $2 billion per year in military support to Egypt. The openly submissive posture to Saudi Arabia. Increased immigration from Islamic nations. Failure to respond to Iran’s repeated, open acts of war after being caught red-handed too many times to count. Favoring Pakistan over India, who knows the ravages of our enemy as well as anyone. A Muslim woman in hijab performing security checks on behalf of the US government. Another Muslim in a high policy position in the Defense Department - apparently quite a radical one. Permission of open treason by the major news media. The jaw-dropping flop of a war propaganda effort. The failure to even acknowledge that the doctrine of Islam is the problem - violating a cardinal rule of war.
Fourth: Our overall defense posture is nonsensical for the world of 2008. Why do we want to be on the firing line in Korea? Isn’t it time, 50 years later, that the South Koreans defended themselves? And the Germans and the French as well? What is the point of NATO? We sink enormous resources into defending them, and not only are they arrogant and ungrateful, but they have the gall to draw down their own forces while we do it. If we are really going to fight a long war against Islam, it is very much in our interest for those powers to have the independent ability to defend themselves. If you’ve been watching the demographics numbers, you know they will need it... and soon.
To sum this up - inconsistencies and clear errors in both strategic and tactical policy, its interminable duration and the Wilsonian philosophy which forms its origin, as well as the high cost and intangible returns, in the context of a nation deeply in debt and entering financial crisis, make me of the firm opinion that the policy is strongly against the vital interests of the nation.
If you read all that, thanks for your time.
“First: When a country is attacked, the very first thing it needs to do is to control its own territory and secure it from the enemy. It is now six years later - longer than the entire duration of World War II - and we have not yet achieved this basic goal. “
Sure we have. This is why we have not been attacked since 9/11.
“The toll for the failure: 20,000 Americans killed per year. 1 million sex crimes by foreigners on US soil. A trillion dollars from the treasury, mostly - and insanely - in the form of direct subsidies.”
I’m referring to international terrorism.
“The mission is no longer the original mission which did deserve support. The original mission was payback for 9/11. In my opinion, we didn’t give it anywhere near hard enough. The mission is now nation building.”
No, the original mission didn’t change. We are fulfilling the objectives laid out in the congressional authorization, which states ‘to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime’. Abandoning Iraq now would be premature and would not comply with our original intent, to fulfill the objectives within the authorization so Iraq no longer presents a threat to the security of the U.S.
“...not counting unprecedented household debt and the resulting economic fallout, the United States cannot afford to continue to rebuild two other nations. “
I don’t think the solution to these problems is to cut our defense budget. Especially since it accounts for only 3.7% of our GDP. But I agree with you that many of our allies could certainly do more to help out.
“If you read all that, thanks for your time.”
No problem. Thanks for your response.
I do not find this convincing. By that standard, Clinton just as good a job as Bush has, and he did it with lawyers (a clear handicap). But a year after Clinton was 9/11. I also do not think it reflects a clear understanding of enemy doctrine. Their purpose was served by the events that event set in motion, and enhanced by the empty hole in the ground where the towers once stood. They have proven their thesis (that the West is a weak and hollow shell of its former self, ripe for their conquest); it was up to us to disprove it, and we failed. They brought down the towers and we could not rebuild them. They are on the ascent and we are on the descent. Their post-9/11 rate of progress is more satisfactory to them than the pre-9/11 rate, as nations all over the world cower to them and give in to their most irrational demands, allowing them to establish colonies and spread their doctrine in every Western nation.
I’m referring to international terrorism.
I really don't see that the manner by which an American dies at the hands of a hostile foreigner really makes a difference to the people who are dying.
No, the original mission didn’t change. We are fulfilling the objectives laid out in the congressional authorization, which states ‘to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime’
Issues of the legality of the authorization aside (a Declaration of War is called for in the Constitution in such a case), we had already fulfilled that mission as of 2005. The Iraqi regime was toppled, and we have (far) more than promote the emergence of a democratic replacement. The question is whether 'promote' means any activity at any expense; the method chosen was the single most expensive method imaginable. We had to borrow the money to pay for it from the Chinese too, which funds their own aggressive military growth... which is primarily aimed at us.
At this point we can quite fairly claim a win and pack it up, and if the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want to live in a decent country it is on their own shoulders to make it so. What the authorization definitely does not call for is the indefinite adoption of whole nations and their unending dependency on the tapped-out American taxpayer.
To put the current effort in perspective, in 2/3 the duration of this current war, the US went from being armed for peacetime to having conquered all of North Africa, half of Europe, the entire South Pacific, and Japan, gaining the unconditional surrender of our enemies - all the while supplying Russian, UK, and various other independent forces.
In contrast, this war is being run like a government program... it eats up more money every year and provides fewer benefits. The fight is being run as if the priority is to keep the gravy flowing to government contractors rather than finding and defeating the enemy. Honestly, a Congressman should be shot for treason if he attempts to earmark defense dollars, putting the favor of a supporter over the effectiveness of our armed forces. But the legislature keeps passing 'em and the President keeps signing 'em and the next generation keeps asking who is expected to pay those bills.
Enough with the play-nice globocop role. Our defense posture should be such that we guarantee complete destruction to anyone who screws with us, and to follow through if necessary, while selling arms to any friendly nation willing to do the job of protecting their own sorry butts. And if they are not... it's their problem. As we have seen since 2001, few of those other countries are really going to stick with us when we get attacked, and their demands are too expensive to support them as vassals.
And if they fail after we are gone, Islamists will have won a tremendous victory. This will mark, because of what ensues in the following 50 years, as the single worst outcome in U.S. history.
I wholly disagree. Iraq was a terrorist nation before we invaded, and if it becomes so afterwards, it’s a wash. We give ‘em one warning and nuke the place clean, and that will be that. Same goes for Afghanistan. Such a loss would really be very minor for us if we weren’t there to be the losers.
As for the Islamists, a victory there would be minor for them as well, compared to the victories they are winning every day in Europe (and to some degree Canada and the US). They’re going to get a whole continent, thanks in no small part to us allowing the Europeans to become weak and flaccid in their dependency.
We won. Now let’s bring the boys home and win the war against Mexico where our vital interests really lie.
I look just like Sean Connery, only completely different.
Brilliant and 100% on point and the best writing I’ve read in ages!! But of course the ‘shadow government’ or Bilderburg or drug cartel or ??? force behind the destruction of our country needs to be brought out from under the rock. What do you think is this source of evil?
And if they fail after we are gone, Islamists will have won a tremendous victory. This will mark ... the worst outcome in U.S. history. -NutCrackerBoy
I wholly disagree. Iraq was a terrorist nation before we invaded, and if it becomes so afterwards, it’s a wash. We give ‘em one warning and nuke the place clean, and that will be that.
Islamists ... are going to get a whole continent, thanks in no small part to us allowing the Europeans to become weak and flaccid in their dependency. -FR Class of 1998
The part of your rosy future scenario that rests on nuking Iraq and Afghanistan (IF they revert to terrorist states) is null and void because it ain't gonna happen. So consider the scenario in which we nuke not.
Let's start with the obvious. The Islamic demographic takeover of Europe is fatal to all of the West if Islamofascism, WMDs, terror states, and terror networks are all integrated and prevalant.
Sure, Political Correctness in the West seriously hampers stern defensive measures. So? And don't change the subject to illegal immigration.
The demography is what it is. There will be no nuking of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. With no nuking, we have to change, to pacify in effect, the Islamic world, so that when the demographic juggernaut comes to pass, as it will, it will be by a culture that respects or at least fears the rule of law.
With no nuking, we have to change, to pacify in effect, the Islamic world, so that when the demographic juggernaut comes to pass, as it will, it will be by a culture that respects or at least fears the rule of law.
You would do well to come to a better understanding of Islamic doctrine. They do fear the rule of law - but it ain't our laws, it's their own head-cutting savagery they call Sharia that they fear. As far as accepting a strategy of managed surrender to them, I fail to see how that is a superior alternative to mutual destruction.
thanks for stating the case so well and accurately!
A pull-out will fix social security? The legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom? The only ones questioning the legality are the far left and Ron Paul supporters (I’ll note that Ron Paul supporters don’t even recognize the War Power’s Act because the claim it to be uncontitutional.) This act is recognized by everyone else, so the unconstitutional accusation is ficticious. Ron Paul’s isolationist stand is impractical. Abandoning Iraq would threaten the security of the U.S. and thus not fulfill the objectives of the authorization (which is 100% constitutional, despite what the Ron Paul followers claim.) Also, prentending we are waging a war on all of Islam is a bin-laden talking point, and of course ficticious.
So... what exactly are we waging war on? Blitzkrieg?
Islamic terrorism. Blitzkreig is a military doctrine.
Terrorism is also a mere military doctrine. Take that out and all you’re left with is Islamic.
shows there is alot more than a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and McCain. This country is at war; who wants Obama or Hillary to lead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.