Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
I can understand that, but that threat has not been removed by his removal. In fact, it may have be increased as a result of further radicalization of Islam (which perceives our military interventions as "Crusades" for "Zionist' interests).
The threat has not been removed, but it has been lessened. Now there is one less government sponsor of the development of nukes intended for the U.S. Al Qaida has already proved that it does not need to be provoked to wage a terrorist war against the U.S. There have been attacks against us since at least the 80's. Bush was the first to recognize it for what it was. Even my hero Reagan didn't get it. The intent of the Islamists to destroy Israel and the U.S. was solidly there well before the Iraq War, or even 9/11.
If one out of ten Muslims is an Islamic radical, that's a potential army of 100 million (no fuzzy math this time!). I believe mine is a conservative figure.
I fully agree. I think there are more than that who are very sympathetic with terrorist actions and could be enlisted to participate.
So, the question is have we made our world safer, and the answer is no. Just the opposite.
I agree with the question, but the answer is unknowable at this time. If we surrender by cutting and running, then the world is MUCH MUCH less safe. However, if there is ultimate victory in Iraq, I believe the world will be safer in the long run. They are going to attack as long as they are alive and can keep recruiting. A stable democracy in Iraq would demoralize them.
That program was blown to pieces by the Israelis. Active production of weapons-grade plutonium and activities associated with such a project are easily detectable, as is the case with N. Korea and Iran. What's the point of lying?
Thanks to Clinton, the DPRK got NINE free years of development without our knowledge, until now it is too late. They have it, and will never let it go. I hope Bush doesn't fall for this latest absurdity of paying them off with fuel oil. That is another joke.
But what was suggested is that somehow the program has "advanced" to the "imminent threat" level.
The suggestion was actually that Iraq was on a path of inevitability, and I think that was correct. The madmen leading the Axis of Evil will never stop developing weapons technology unless forced to.
Yet the UN inspections, and intelligence reports were not as certain as politicians.
I suppose we disagree on how much weight should be accorded to UN inspection reports.
In September 2002, the International Institute for Strategical Studies (IISS), which calls itself the "world's leading authority on political military conflicts," said...
From what I could find, the IISS is nothing more than a private British think tank, like the Heritage Foundation is here. You showed that their findings were hyped to the public, but I don't see any evidence that there was actual reliance on them. Governments have their own independent data that can't be made public. Quoting think tanks is a PR move. Maybe it's unsavory, but in today's world it appears that wars must be "sold" to the public.
Bush and Blair have both suffered tremendous political losses as a result of this war. I still haven't heard a credible argument as to how it would benefit either of them to manufacture the war on false pretenses. War for oil doesn't cut it. I don't think the Islamists hated Britain nearly as much as they hated the U.S. and Israel. What was the threat to Britain's oil supply? As I said before, anyone can buy it on the open market.
So, it is clear who was doing the lying for our side, and we didn't stop him. The urgency and even panic situation was being created deliberately and without despite facts on the ground to the contrary, by various "analysts" and emigre groups.
I'm sure there were politically based "facts" flying around on all sides. Bush was convinced that regime change was in our interests, so why would he question the rhetoric of a like-minded ally?
Yet it was precisely the hysteria created that cut short the mandated Blix inspections which were to end several month later. In other words, the inspections could have been completed in time prescribed, and there was no need to go for a predetermined invasion date.
I am sure that Bush and Blair were convinced, as I was at the time, that the Blix-led inspections were a sham. It made no difference whether the inspections were ever "completed" or not. No weapons would have been found, regardless. Saddam obstructed them from the beginning, and Blix and company thought that was just fine. They just kept negotiating. Again, this was the failure of the hard left to recognize evil for what it was and is.
But, my theory is that we knew very well that Saddam had nothing, and that Blix's inspections would reveal that he had nothing, and would not give us the casus belli we were looking for, so we decided to cut the UN inspections lest they rob us of an opportunity to launch the war everyone was itching for. I am sure the neocons and everyone up the chain knew that there was nothing in saddam's arsenal all along.
If you agree that Saddam was a madman dictator, then what is your theory to explain Saddam's unilateral and SECRET disarming? Iraq was getting really hurt with sanctions at the time. All Saddam had to do was say, "hey come on in and look anywhere you want, we disarmed all by ourselves in the interests of world peace", etc. Yet, according to you, Saddam chose the sanctions in order to protect a weapons program he didn't have!!! AY CARAMBA! :)
It's a poor choice of words and a poor counter-argument because it has nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact it degrades it. You are mixing apples and oranges.
It was a good choice of words because denying Middle East terrorism is to ignore the facts to the same degree that Holocaust deniers do. While the Holocaust was certainly on an incomparable scale (to date, that is), both it and terrorism are centered on murdering innocent civilians.
It was precisely the formation of Israel that provoked instability (ethnic cleansing and Palestinian refugee problem) and retaliatory Arab terrorism which hasn't stopped to this date. ...
Your quote that I was reacting to with my Holocaust comment was the following:
"There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there."
You said stable Middle East and no terrorism, except for the Israelis. That denies common knowledge. Now you appear to acknowledge Arab terrorism, but only as retaliation. I like to ask this of people with your view: What do you think would happen if magically, all weapons above a machine gun suddenly disappeared from Israel and its Arab neighbors? Would Israel SEEK to launch a major offensive to take over the whole region? Or, would most of the Arab countries SEEK to drive the Jews into the sea? I know the answer for certain. The only side that doesn't recognize the other's right to exist is the Arab side. Arabs don't want to relocate the Jews so they can reclaim "their" land. No, they simply want to KILL all Jews. That's a big reason why I oppose Israel's enemies.
Yes, Saddam kept Iran in check and he kept the various factions in Iraq in check.
LOL! Yeah, Saddam sure kept the Iraqi factions in check alright. All he did was torture and murder all dissenters AND their families. WAY TO GO Saddam! Do you really want to keep defending this guy? I don't know if that is what you are really trying to do, but it sure sounds like it.
I agree with you because you are talking about the fruits of a heart that was really, truly changed. I also think that getting into God's word is extremely important. The basics of salvation are easy enough for a child to understand, but the strength and wisdom it takes to continue to persevere I think come from God sanctifying us. Part of that is growing in knowledge of scripture, imo.
How was it lessoned? Now we have al Qaida in Iraq whereas before there was none. Hussein's subsidizing of terrorists went as far as Palestinian entefada uprising against Israel. It's the same as the aid being pumped to the Palestinian "martyrs" by Saudi Arabia. It was never directed at us.
The intent of the Islamists to destroy Israel and the U.S. [sic] was solidly there well before the Iraq War, or even 9/11
I have not been aware that Islamic radicals planned on destroying the US. Where did you get that information? Again, Iraq had no connection with al Qaida, which actually launched an attack on us. Removing Saddam could not have diminished al Qaida's desire to hurt us and did not diminish the threat that they might try because there was no such connection.
However, if there is ultimate victory in Iraq
I remember the Vietnam war and there were diehards like you (and in those days like me) who argued the same impossibility...It's not that we were ever defeated outright on the battlefield, but we lost the war the way the French won in Algiers but lost the political war at home and abroad. We only prolonged the agony and wasted many lives in order to save face, which we lost in the end the hard way.
Thanks to Clinton, the DPRK got NINE free years of development without our knowledge, until now it is too late
Which brings up an excellent point: politicians are not liable. They enjoy immunity and any damage they incur through sheer stupidity or even carelessness costs them nothing. They retire, sell memoirs and live happily until they go to hell. trouble is, they drag an awful lot of people with them. Responsible government is accountable for its actions, the way responsible professionals carry liability and can be brought on charges of negligence. Clinton's kangaroo impeachment was an excellent example of how immune, and what real chameleons the politicians truly are. Do not forget that Clinton could not have gotten off the hook for lying under oath were it not for willing Republicans voting to protect their privileges as Congressmen regardless of party affiliation.
The suggestion was actually that Iraq was on a path of inevitability
That is hardly a justification for war. Suggestions are just that. Hard evidence of inevitability would be signs of troop movements, missile launchers being activated, radar "paintings" of potential targets, etc.
I suppose we disagree on how much weight should be accorded to UN inspection reports
The UN inspections had a mandate and we pressed for them in 2002. When it became obvious that WMDs did not exist the neocons and the bush administration realized that the UN will never approve going into Iraq. Something had to be done, even if circumventing the UN, to make sure the UN inspectors do not confirm absence of all the conjectures and lies about them: pre-emptive strike based on conjecture and cooked up evidence.
Powell's disastrous demonstration in the UN showed that the UN was not willing to rubber-stand our request to invade another country that was no threat to us, its regime's distasteful dictator notwithstanding. When this test failed, it was clear we would have to "go it alone" and before the UN inspections were completed.
From what I could find, the IISS is nothing more than a private British think tank, like the Heritage Foundation is here. You showed that their findings were hyped to the public, but I don't see any evidence that there was actual reliance on them
Public hype was the number one aim because the key to going to Iraq was no longer a UN SC resolution authorizing force (which we would never get based on available evidence), but convincing the American and British people that, already sacred to death by 9/11, that Iraq was an growing imminent threat. The aim was to sell the story to the American people and get Congressional approval. Thus all the hype they could muster was the main propaganda staple, completely dismissing facts, but relying on pure speculations and scare tactics.
Bush and Blair have both suffered tremendous political losses as a result of this war
Actually, it affected their careers next to nothing.
I still haven't heard a credible argument as to how it would benefit either of them to manufacture the war on false pretenses
Not them, Israel. Saddam was a nuisance for the Israelis only, with his support for the Palestinian suicide bombers. The lying emigre groups with Chalaby at the helm managed to convince the naive and the stupid that the Iraqis would be welcoming Americans and their Christian allies as liberators (of course that was a perfect example of taqquiya or legitimate lying Muslims can exercise to deceive the infidel in order to gain upper hand), and the idea of controlling such vast oil reserves and the geoplitical significance of that to us and the region was intioxicatingly attractive, especially in view of the fact that it would place Saudi Arabia in a subservniant position.
Bush was convinced that regime change was in our interests, so why would he question the rhetoric of a like-minded ally?
Regime change was not our reason to go to war. It was an after-thought strategy concocted after WMDs proved to be non-existent.
If you agree that Saddam was a madman dictator, then what is your theory to explain Saddam's unilateral and SECRET disarming?
He didn't disarm. There were some old weapons left from previous war with Iran and Gulf war that deteriorated. The "tonnes" of anthrax and other biological weapons were concoctions of Iraqi emigres without a shred of evidence. As Deufer's (sp?) report indicated in October 2006, 'just about everything' about Iraq the public was made aware of was untrue.
While the Holocaust was certainly on an incomparable scale (to date, that is), both it and terrorism are centered on murdering innocent civilians
Casual comparisons to the Holocaust are a poor choice because they diminish the horror of the Holocaust.
You said stable Middle East and no terrorism, except for the Israelis,..
...against the British...you forgot or left out that part. The British left Palestine in 1948. Therefore my statement was not open-ended. But, apparently you don't know the history, and you didn't botherto check the facts before firing back.
Palestine was stable. The only instability came from the Israelis settling the region illegally and resorting to terror tactics against the British authorities there, both military and civilian. Examples that come to mind are the bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun in 1946, and the killing of over 90 people there, civilians included; or the assassination of Lord Moyne, British Deputy Resident Minister of State, by the Lehi organization, aka the Stern Gang in 1944.
The Irgun, by the way, was a terrorist organization and its remnants have morphed into a political party known as Likud (Ariel Sharon's party). Former Israeli PM ( 1977-1983)Menchaim Begin was an active member and the head of the Irgun between 1943-1948, and took part in its terrorist activities and carried command responsibility for its atrocities but was never tried.
The two gangs were actively involved in ethnic cleansing of large areas the UN designated areas where future Arab (Palestinian) and Jewish states were to be formed. Without such ethnic rearrangement of population (the major cause of the Palestinian 60-year refugee problem in neighboring Arab states), Israel could not have become a viable state and proclaim independence in violation of the UN Charter.
This is pure verifiable history and not a denial, certainly nothing even comparable to the Holocaust denials.
Yeah, Saddam sure kept the Iraqi factions in check alright. All he did was torture and murder all dissenters AND their families
We certainly thought so, when Rumsfeld provided him with weapons needed to fight Iranians and keep Kurds and Shiites in check, when we knew he was getting and using chemical weapons and did nothing to stop him. When we needed him, we looked the other way, then got outraged retroactively when he was no longer "our thug." The same was the case with Romania's Causcescu, making him the recipient of our aid and financial support, even though his human rights violations were an abomination. The list of Latin American dictators ala Pinochet and South Korean generals, or Haiti's Papa Doc and numerous others we used is impressive. Funny, when they were doing good things for us, their inhumanity didn't bother us the least, like the case of Taliban which we helped arm.
FK: The Bible disagrees: Heb 12:5-11 : 5 ...
The fact that there is suffering is only the sign of our ongoing sin in the world. God suffered for all of us, past present and future, so that those who suffer may be comforted. That is why He says "I will send you the Comforter (Paraclete)" thre Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
The Spirit is the one who comforts us and heals our spiritual wounds. Suffering does not come from God. Comofrt does.
That's right. Now Al Qaida is putting its manpower and resources (including money) into Iraq instead of major American cities. I don't think its any accident that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. That's not the only reason, but I think it is part of the reason.
Hussein's subsidizing of terrorists went as far as Palestinian entefada uprising against Israel.
Yes, and our policy is to protect Israel, as a friend.
I have not been aware that Islamic radicals planned on destroying the US. Where did you get that information?
First, from the Koran, we are infidels. Second, from observing the multiple deadly attacks against our nation since the late 70's. The limited damage was only due to limited ability. Once they acquire nuclear technology they will not hesitate to use it in our country. That would have been true regardless of Iraq. They believe that their mission from Allah is, to the best of their ability, to convert all people on earth to Islam, and kill all the rest.
[Re: Vietnam] It's not that we were ever defeated outright on the battlefield, but we lost the war the way the French won in Algiers but lost the political war at home and abroad. We only prolonged the agony and wasted many lives in order to save face, which we lost in the end the hard way.
I was only a wee tyke at the time, so all I know is from the history books. But, from what I do know, you are right on how it went down. There wasn't a commitment to finish the job. I think Bush is determined not to make the same mistakes we made back then. If we quit now like we did back then, there will be massive carnage and Al Qaida will have a national homebase. We'll just have to go back again. What's the use of that? The surge has a real chance to work. Just today I heard that 25 local Sunni and Shia tribes have agreed to put their differences aside for the moment, and join with the U.S. against Al Qaida. That's great news.
They retire, sell memoirs and live happily until they go to hell.
LOL! Yep, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. :)
Clinton's kangaroo impeachment was an excellent example of how immune, and what real chameleons the politicians truly are. Do not forget that Clinton could not have gotten off the hook for lying under oath were it not for willing Republicans voting to protect their privileges as Congressmen regardless of party affiliation.
That's not what I remember. I think the House Republicans did a good job and showed a lot of courage in getting the impeachment. It was the some of the Senate Republicans, like snarlin' Arlen, who let down the whole country by not having a real trial. But the truth is there was never any chance that Clinton would have been convicted. They needed 67 votes and the Democrats decided to stand by their man. 10 Republicans flipped, 0 Dems did. (So, even if the Repubs all held together they still wouldn't have had enough votes, they would have been 12 votes short.) Notice the difference between this and what the Republicans did to Nixon. He was told that Republicans would not support him in an impeachment trial, and thus forced his resignation. Similar net circumstances, very different results.
FK: "The suggestion was actually that Iraq was on a path of inevitability."
That is hardly a justification for war. Suggestions are just that. Hard evidence of inevitability would be signs of troop movements, missile launchers being activated, radar "paintings" of potential targets, etc.
But that isn't the case anymore. Now, in order to kill hundreds of thousands of people, one only needs a handful of men acting under cover. No troop mobilization is needed anymore. Terrorists are not going to fire missiles at our mainland (at least not under a Bush or similar presidency). They will smuggle in WMDs and detonate them in major cities. We have to prevent them from getting the technology for as long as we can. That includes selected preemptive strikes.
The UN inspections had a mandate and we pressed for them in 2002.
That was a diplomatic PR stunt by Bush. He had to show the world that he was trying to avoid war by peaceful means. I suspect he knew the inspections would be a sham, and they were.
When it became obvious that WMDs did not exist the neocons and the bush administration realized that the UN will never approve going into Iraq.
You can thank Saddam for that. If he actually cooperated, and he really had no weapons, then Bush would have been sunk. So, if your view is correct, then Saddam couldn't have been a better friend to Bush.
Powell's disastrous demonstration in the UN showed that the UN was not willing to rubber-stamp our request to invade another country that was no threat to us, its regime's distasteful dictator notwithstanding. When this test failed, it was clear we would have to "go it alone" and before the UN inspections were completed.
Thank God Bush did not accept the view that we need a permission slip from a thoroughly corrupt organization such as the UN (populated mostly by anti-American countries) in order to defend ourselves. So, we led a coalition of the willing.
Public hype was the number one aim because the key to going to Iraq was no longer a UN SC resolution authorizing force (which we would never get based on available evidence), but convincing the American and British people that, already scared to death by 9/11, that Iraq was an growing imminent threat.
Sure there was hype. These days there has to be. If the people aren't behind it, then there won't be any funding to complete it. That's Bush's problem now.
But, do you really truly think that the SC votes based on something as esoteric as "evidence"? No way. They vote based on politics. There is all kinds of bargaining going on behind closed doors for votes. The minute we turn over our national security to the UN SC, as we certainly will under the next liberal administration, then the terrorists will be smiling indeed. That will be the ticket they've been waiting for.
The aim was to sell the story to the American people and get Congressional approval. Thus all the hype they could muster was the main propaganda staple, completely dismissing facts, but relying on pure speculations and scare tactics.
I agree with everything except the last part. I'm sure there were "facts" on both sides. You believed the ones that agreed with your position, as did I. The full story on WMDs is yet to be written. Even the half-wit Blix acknowledged that it made no sense to him that a country who kept meticulous records had none indicating that known weapons had been dismantled. That's because they never were, they were buried or moved. Enough anthrax to kill 100 million people can be stored in a single semi-trailer. With all the notice that Saddam had, it could be anywhere, and we may never find it.
FK: "Bush and Blair have both suffered tremendous political losses as a result of this war."
Actually, it affected their careers next to nothing.
For months now, with no end in sight, Bush has been completely neutered as a President with his polls so low. Had his numbers been in the 60s, he probably would have gotten his amnesty legislation through. (Thank God he didn't :). He is in no position to accomplish anything, and probably won't be for the rest of his presidency. All Presidents care greatly about their legacies. Bush's will certainly depend on the outcome of the war, so he took a HUGE risk with this. This is exactly why Clinton ignored terrorism, it was too messy and it might hurt his image, so he punted everything forward to the next guy. Clinton's number are still in the 60s because of his cowardice, and Bush's are in the 20s because he didn't put himself first.
FK: "I still haven't heard a credible argument as to how it would benefit either of them to manufacture the war on false pretenses."
Not them, Israel. Saddam was a nuisance for the Israelis only, with his support for the Palestinian suicide bombers.
I cannot believe that Bush and Blair committed domestic forces in Iraq for the main purpose of protecting Israel. That is the sort of thing that would take a missile strike to cause. Israel certainly benefited, but that wouldn't be enough to justify going to war in those circumstances. Bush and Blair both believed that it was in their respective nations' national security interests to take action when they did.
Regime change was not our reason to go to war. It was an after-thought strategy concocted after WMDs proved to be non-existent.
To this day, WMDs have not proved to be non-existent since no one can say what happened to the ones everyone knew he already had. They have only proved to be not found. How could regime change have been an after-thought? What was the before-thought? If they did find weapons, there probably still would have been regime change.
He didn't disarm. There were some old weapons left from previous war with Iran and Gulf war that deteriorated. The "tonnes" of anthrax and other biological weapons were concoctions of Iraqi emigres without a shred of evidence. As Deufer's (sp?) report indicated in October 2006, 'just about everything' about Iraq the public was made aware of was untrue.
So, Saddam the dictator just shut down production of WMDs out of the goodness of his heart? Do you believe he thought that he would never be involved in another war again? Preposterous. That defies all reason, and especially for all that is known about dictators. We HAVE recovered documents (and people) proving he had an active nuclear program going, BTW. I'm sure that it was just for energy because Iraq had no other sources of fuel. :)
FK: "You said stable Middle East and no terrorism, except for the Israelis,.."
...against the British...you forgot or left out that part. The British left Palestine in 1948. Therefore my statement was not open-ended. But, apparently you don't know the history, and you didn't bother to check the facts before firing back.
I can't read your mind, Kosta. You never said or indicated your were only talking about "against Britain". Your comments were in response to my "The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley." No talk of Britain-only there. What was I supposed to think? You made no connection to Britain-only.
The two gangs were actively involved in ethnic cleansing of large areas the UN designated areas where future Arab (Palestinian) and Jewish states were to be formed. Without such ethnic rearrangement of population (the major cause of the Palestinian 60-year refugee problem in neighboring Arab states), Israel could not have become a viable state and proclaim independence in violation of the UN Charter.
I suppose one man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. I know where you stand regarding the Islamic Arabs and Israeli Jews. :)
Funny, when they were doing good things for us, their inhumanity didn't bother us the least, like the case of Taliban which we helped arm.
All those things you listed certainly happened. Situational politics has been around on all sides since the beginning. Those you support have done it too. So what's the solution? Is the remedy for that to cut and run in Iraq now?
True, but I don't see what that has to do with our conversation.
God suffered for all of us, past present and future, so that those who suffer may be comforted.
God suffered on our behalf, but He never said anything about not causing us to suffer by His discipline. Two different subjects.
The Spirit is the one who comforts us and heals our spiritual wounds. Suffering does not come from God. Comfort does.
Do you have an alternate interpretation for my quote from Hebrews 12:5-11?
LOL, more rationalizations. If you think al Qaida being in Iraq is a good thing, you really don't see the big picture.
Yes, and our policy is to protect Israel, as a friend
We don't have a defense treaty with Israel, and Israel was not under attack.
First, from the Koran, we are infidels
Two billion Christians are infidels, and three billion Chinese are infidels, and 1.5 billion Indians (in India) are infidels, etc. Do you really think they can believe they can destroy infidels?
The limited damage was only due to limited ability
Stupidity, not limited ability. Some six million Jews defeated (repeatedly) 100 million Arabs since 1948. Muslims are lousy fighters. They are good at two things: being stupid and showing off and killing like cowards do. It's the worst combination in the world: stupid and cowardly.
They have money, they have resources, they have everything they need. Limited ability is in their lack of talent and lack of courage. The fact that they blow themselves up is not courage any more than Japanese kamikaze attacks were. It's a sign of stupidity, and necessity, because they can't fight a regular warfare, so they attack those who can't defend themselves.
Why even 9/11 would have been an idiotic stunt had it not taken all those innocent lives. From a an operational point of view, it was a clumsy half-haphazrd execution with no follow up. Instead of spreading out and acting over extended time frame, hitting our economy, they acted foolishly and made a big boom that shocked a lot of people, but only got us angry. Pretty much like the desperate and somewhat provoked attack on pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Anyone who thinks they can destroy America are certifiably lunatics divorced from reality.
There wasn't a commitment to finish the job. I think Bush is determined not to make the same mistakes we made back then
But the mood is the same. The same arguments were used then. To no avail. the people simply lost the will to fight and endless war in a godforsaken part of the world and prop up regimes that have no life of their own but are corrupt and untrustworthy. The American people simply don't see that as worth dying for. I don't blame them. The hardest thing is to reconcile all the dead who didn't have to die for a cause that will not make us safer or better off.
If we quit now like we did back then, there will be massive carnage and Al Qaida will have a national homebase
If they come here we will hunt them down and bomb them and flame them and killed them mercilessly. Recruiting stations will be overflowing. We have enough firepower to steamroll over any country that gives them sanctuary. If it means bombing infrastructures of a dozen countries a week, so be it.
But what makes this argument completely null and void is the porous border this president has allowed to fester and the whole issue of illegal immigrants, of which we now have an army of 12 million. How many of those could be al Qaida illegals? How many of those could be carrying deadly diseases with them because no one stopped them at the border? Does it take an epidemic or national proportions to get Congress and this president to focus on domestic security instead of wasting our young men's and women's lives in a sh*tpot country like Iraq (which we managed to make even more of a sh*tpot), making the world safer for Israel? What is Israel doing for us and our security problems? Nothing!
The surge has a real chance to work. Just today I heard that 25 local Sunni and Shia tribes have agreed to put their differences aside for the moment, and join with the U.S. against Al Qaida. That's great news
Your enthusiasms is understandable, but if you trust Muslims you are a fool. They are doing this for some reason that is entirely in their interest at this moment. Tomorrow they may be helping al Qaida. It depends who's offering more. We have no real friends there. They are all (Israel included) are just using us.
They needed 67 votes and the Democrats decided to stand by their man. 10 Republicans flipped, 0 Dems did
That's my point. They knew all along where each senator stood. But they went through the whole kangaroo process knowing that there will be no conviction. It was just so they can say "we tried." No president will be impeached over something like this. It would create partisan tit-for-tat and make the life of Congress a living hell. Our fat and dumb politicians would not want that, trust me. The impeachment is reserved for almost improbable but possible crimes such as treason or bribery from a foreign country, etc. That would get any president impeached in a heartbeat.
As for Nixon, the case was much more clear cut. The tapes were damaging beyond repair. Nixon also lost Spiro Agnew (a Greek-American Vice President but strangely enough Episcopalian), who resigned because of charged of tax evasion, which happened in the middle of the Watergate scandal. Anybody who was associated with the Nixon White House was either arrested or resigned and wanted nothing to do with it, so the Republican reaction was not a surprise.
But that isn't the case anymore. Now, in order to kill hundreds of thousands of people, one only needs a handful of men acting under cover
One more reason we need to stop illegal immigration yesterday! But dear old GW is doing nothing of the sort, and neither is our Congress. We are still concerned with political correctness and protecting the untouchable capitalist profit-based system that hires illegals.
They will smuggle in WMDs and detonate them in major cities
Again, we need to close our borders and kick out those who are not citizens of this country and are here illegally. Their children, born here, can come and ask for American citizenship when they turn 18. Sacrificing our men and women in Iraq will not stop them from slipping through our porous borders.
Being completely helpless to fight a ragtag army of bandits does very little for our image abroad as a superpower. A giant who's not smart enough to watch his back and just keeps swatting thin air earns very little respect.
I suspect he knew the inspections would be a sham, and they were.
They were not a sham, they were actually true! Everything they said turned out to be true and everything Bush said turned out to be a lie. Now, our multibillion-dollar three-letter agencies are either completely incompetent and can't get their story straight or the top leadership was lying. I think the three-letter agencies are not incompetent.
Thank God Bush did not accept the view that we need a permission slip from a thoroughly corrupt organization such as the UN
The UN doesn't operate like that. The General Assembly has zero power. That's' where most of your third-world banana republic are seated. It is only the Security Council that has the executive and binding power. It is made up of WWII allies, US, UK, France, and Russia. During Nixon, China was added as a permanent member. There are also rotating countries which sit in the SC and have a vote. But permanent members have a veto power.
That SC is where the US was in the position to help Israel the most by using the veto. Not that Israel really obeys any of the UN resolutions; I guess it's that "special relationship" we have with them. So, the UN is not all that bad when it serves our purposes. It's only when we don't get our way that we throw a tantrum and wan to shut down the UN. Nut when it comes to using UN infrastructure to allow Israel unimpeded freedom then we don't mind the "thoroughly corrupt" organization. Besides, the chairman is always our pick. If we don't like him, we fire him and pick another. "It's good to be a king" (from the History of the World Part I with and by Mel Brooks).
But, do you really truly think that the SC votes based on something as esoteric as "evidence"? No way. They vote based on politics
That's a standard accusation, but our evidence was garbage. It was an insult to intelligence.
Enough anthrax to kill 100 million people can be stored in a single semi-trailer. With all the notice that Saddam had, it could be anywhere, and we may never find it
Anthrax is a very poor biological weapon. That's why no country uses it. Smallpox would be a much more dangerous threat, and we are not out of danger because we have porous borders, so who knows what is being brought into the country without our knowledge. But we must be politically correct and not hurt poor illegal immigrants' feelings.
Saddam's real weapons were his poison gas bombs he used on Kurds and Iranians (and vice versa). But he had no long range delivery means, and Israelis have gas masks and adequate anti-aricfrat defenses. Where was the urgency?
For months now, with no end in sight, Bush has been completely neutered as a President with his polls so low
He's a lame duck President. What does he care about the polls? he already ruined last year's elections for his own Party, so if anything his own base is abandoning him because he is a walking disaster. he can't speak, he is cocky, pretty much p&ssing people off with his "I don't care' attitude." It runs in his family. His father alienated a large number of voters and gave republican presidency to the likes of Clinton with his famous "Read my lips. No new taxes." He lied. Like father like son. And then they can't understand why the people get sick of them. People voted for the third party candidate (Ross Perot) just not to vote Republican in 1992.
So, Saddam the dictator just shut down production of WMDs out of the goodness of his heart?
I wouldn't know where to begin speculating on his motives, least of all would be goodness of his heart. Fact is, we were wrong about him on just about every account.
I suppose one man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. I know where you stand regarding the Islamic Arabs and Israeli Jews. :)
Jewish terroirsts killed innocent people, just as any terrorist group does. To me there are no freedom fighters among terrorists. Read up on the massacre by Irgun-Lehi gangs at Deir Yassin in 1948 under the British rule. Some 120 civlians of all ages were killed. This was in retaliation for the killing of 77 Jewish health care workers by the Arabs. My point was not to blame only one side, but the Arans were not resorting to terror tactics against the British who were legally there with a mandate. Inter Jewish-Arab skirmishes existed for a long time, but the Jewish groups were particularly bent on assassinations of British civilian and military leaders and represented organized terroirsts organizations, which know names, presidents or commanders, etc.
Is the remedy for that to cut and run in Iraq now?
You are young enough to be at the tail end of draft. There is your chance to put your foot where your mouth is. Join the military, give your country three years of your life, and fight for what you believe in. What's stopping you?
I think we would be doing a better job of making the world safer for us instead of some and going hard after any who attempt to hurt us, then bleeding without end in sight in some sh&t-pot country we managed to take apart and can't put together.
Al Qaida existing anywhere is a bad thing. But, it is better that they are fighting and dying over there than over here.
We don't have a defense treaty with Israel, and Israel was not under attack.
What do you call multiple suicide bomb attacks? But as I said earlier, I don't think Israel was a PRINCIPLE reason that we went into Iraq.
Two billion Christians are infidels, and three billion Chinese are infidels, and 1.5 billion Indians (in India) are infidels, etc. Do you really think they can believe they can destroy infidels?
Yes, absolutely, by the grace of Allah. The whole thing is based on "faith". Allah will deliver their enemies into their hands. I didn't say it wasn't crazy, but that's what I think they believe.
Stupidity, not limited ability. Some six million Jews defeated (repeatedly) 100 million Arabs since 1948. Muslims are lousy fighters.
I agree with stupid and cowardly. Man for man, the motivation to commit murder has to be much less than the motivation to NOT BE murdered. Plus, I think we gave the Jews some nifty toys to play with, but I can't remember when that actually began.
Anyone who thinks they can destroy America are certifiably lunatics divorced from reality.
Yes, these are the people who proudly strap suicide belts to their children and send them into crowds.
FK: "There wasn't a commitment to finish the job. I think Bush is determined not to make the same mistakes we made back then."
But the mood is the same. The same arguments were used then. To no avail. the people simply lost the will to fight and endless war in a godforsaken part of the world and prop up regimes that have no life of their own but are corrupt and untrustworthy.
The mood might be the same right now, but at least we have the "benefit" of the Vietnam experience today. Americans hate losing now more than ever. If the surge really produces some positive results (good signs so far), then I think that mood could greatly change, and change quickly. I think the American people are more starved for good news, than starved to quit today.
We have enough firepower to steamroll over any country that gives them sanctuary. If it means bombing infrastructures of a dozen countries a week, so be it.
Well, if we quit now, that country would be Iraq. Iran would move right in along side Al Qaida and they would rule together. IOW, by surrendering now we will just have to go back later and start all over again, being forced to kill many many more civilians.
But what makes this argument completely null and void is the porous border this president has allowed to fester and the whole issue of illegal immigrants, of which we now have an army of 12 million. How many of those could be al Qaida illegals?
Now THERE we are simpatico my friend. :) I am furious with Bush for his refusal to protect the border, and policy of making it worse with his amnesty plan. I am at a loss to explain why he is doing this.
Does it take an epidemic of national proportions to get Congress and this president to focus on domestic security ...
Unfortunately, apparently. And it will happen.
What is Israel doing for us and our security problems? Nothing!
I don't know about that. They are our eyes and ears over there, I'll bet we get a lot of intelligence from them that nobody ever hears about. Having a stable friend in Iraq will make it all the better.
Your enthusiasms is understandable, but if you trust Muslims you are a fool. They are doing this for some reason that is entirely in their interest at this moment. Tomorrow they may be helping al Qaida. It depends who's offering more.
We don't need to trust them, we'll see what they deliver. I have to believe that there are some Iraqis who can read the writing on the wall. If we leave now, many more of them and their families will die. I have to think there is a sizable number who don't want that. After all, they voted.
But they went through the whole kangaroo process knowing that there will be no conviction. It was just so they can say "we tried." No president will be impeached over something like this.
If Clinton had pulled out a pistol and shot dead a poor, elderly, disabled, gay, black woman on live global television, the Dems would have voted to acquit, saying that either the tape was doctored or that it was a Clinton double, or that it didn't matter because he was such a great president. The House Repubs really did try in good faith, but the Senate Repubs didn't really try because the trial itself was a sham. Had they done a real trial and still lost, then I could live with that.
One more reason we need to stop illegal immigration yesterday! But dear old GW is doing nothing of the sort, and neither is our Congress.
I don't know what else Congress can do. They passed the bill for the fence, and then appropriated the money to build it. I think the money is still sitting there waiting to be used, but Bush refuses. Then, the Repubs in Congress blocked the amnesty bill, thank God.
Again, we need to close our borders and kick out those who are not citizens of this country and are here illegally.
I didn't know if you were for that too, and I'm still with you.
They were not a sham, they were actually true! Everything they said turned out to be true and everything Bush said turned out to be a lie. Now, our multibillion-dollar three-letter agencies are either completely incompetent and can't get their story straight or the top leadership was lying. I think the three-letter agencies are not incompetent.
CIA said "Slam Dunk". That is indisputable. The inspections were not true, they were inconclusive because they were not meaningfully completed. Saddam refused to cooperate, to his doom. As I said before, there were "facts" flying around on all sides. You haven't explained to me why Bush is a liar because he didn't follow the facts that you liked.
[The UN SC] is made up of WWII allies, US, UK, France, and Russia. During Nixon, China was added as a permanent member. There are also rotating countries which sit in the SC and have a vote. But permanent members have a veto power.
I know all the money votes are in the SC. But 9 votes are needed to pass anything. Of the permanent members I only count ONE ally (UK). France has not been a friend in years, and Russia and China love to see America embarrassed at any opportunity. We can't count on them for anything, and any one of them has veto power. That is a permission slip from our rivals against interest. If Hillary gets in she will send "citizen statesman" Bill along with whoever is stupid enough to accept the SOS job under Hillary (just as a tag-along) to kiss rings at the UN and look good for the cameras, all to the detriment of American national interests.
Not that Israel really obeys any of the UN resolutions; I guess it's that "special relationship" we have with them. So, the UN is not all that bad when it serves our purposes.
If Israel followed every UN resolution they would all be dead today. The majority of members hate Israel and would be just fine if they were exterminated. So, the UN is worse than "that bad". They lose points for bringing the resolutions in the first place.
Saddam's real weapons were his poison gas bombs he used on Kurds and Iranians (and vice versa). But he had no long range delivery means, and Israelis have gas masks and adequate anti-aricfrat defenses. Where was the urgency?
Israeli military has gas masks but not a great number of civilians. Some did, but I've never seen a street shot showing most civilians going through their days carrying gas masks. Terrorists could smuggle in and deploy the gas in crowded areas and kill thousands at a time. That was possible at any time. The timing of when we went in was a great combination of things.
He's a lame duck President. What does he care about the polls?
Plenty. Low numbers will hurt the party in general, as you note about '06, so if it happens again in '08, he will be blamed by Republicans for many years to come. No one wants that.
His father alienated a large number of voters and gave republican presidency to the likes of Clinton with his famous "Read my lips. No new taxes." He lied.
I'll give you that one, except for the lying. B41 DID break a solemn promise and paid the price for it. It would only be a lie if B41 fully intended to later raise taxes when he made the promise. I don't think that happened. And B43 did not manufacture evidence to take the country to war under false pretenses. That would be treasonous. Bush may not be a lot of things, but I think he is a patriot. We all saw how 9/11 affected him. Those were not crocodile tears. He's not that good. :)
I think we would be doing a better job of making the world safer for us instead of some and going hard after any who attempt to hurt us, then bleeding without end in sight in some sh&t-pot country we managed to take apart and can't put together.
Then you see it as a matter of crime and not war. That is the key distinction. If it is crime, then we sit back and wait to get hit, and then try to go out and find who did it. If it is war, then we do whatever it takes to kill the enemy BEFORE they hit. Clinton did the former and Bush did the latter.
But, it is better that they are fighting and dying over there than over here
While our borders remain porous. Of 12 million or more illegals, how many could actually be terrorists? Could they be using Iraq as a diversionary tactic and a psycjological propaganda tool (defeating our will to fight), while they are slipping in by the thousands through our unsecured borders?
What do you call multiple suicide bomb attacks?
Entefada is not connected to what is going on in Iraq. Outwardly maybe, but the cause of entefada are unrelated to Iraq. The only relationship Iraq had to Palestinian terrorists is giving money and material assistance to relatives of suicide bombers (they call them "martyrs"). Other Islamic countries and organizations are doing the same thing, including Saudi Arabia. I don't see us threatening the Saudis. Let's be consistent.
The mood might be the same right now, but at least we have the "benefit" of the Vietnam experience today. Americans hate losing now more than ever
The benefit of any experience is if you remember it. Most Americans don't remember it, or if they do it's a fuzzy memory. Americans hates losing then just as much, which is exactly why we held out against better, concerned more with saving face than lives.
But we are up and against a much more formidable enemy today. Vietnam was an isolated area, including Cambodia and Laos. Muslims are scattered all over the world, a diffuse army of probably 100 million waiting for an opportunity to strike. You can't bomb them, you can't corner them...and they are probably pouring across our borders carrying knowledge, pieces of weapons and chemical/biological warfare and we wouldn't know it because we are too concerned with political correctness vis-a-vis illegal immigrants.
It's like someone watching the front door for thieves while they are robbing your blind from the back yard entrance.
Well, if we quit now, that country would be Iraq. Iran would move right in along side Al Qaida and they would rule together. IOW, by surrendering now we will just have to go back later and start all over again, being forced to kill many many more civilians
One thing they don't have is global reach. very few countries have, in fact, only one does, the US. Countries like Iran can affect neighboring countries, but for them to seriously confront us is out of the question. We can actually reduce Iran to a rubble and turn it into stone age without even having to fly over their territory. We could destroy their bridges, factories, oils wells, roads, railways, electrical grids, crops, waterways, institutions, etc. with nothing but guided missiles.
Ours is to make sure there are none of these goons in our backyard and none can come in. For that to happen we must change our way of thinking. Which we are not prepared to do yet. Once they realized they can do nothing to us without getting clobbered for every attempt, they would stop.
The grave mistake in Vietnam was the fact that we were there. We should have provided every logistical support for the regime of South Vietnam without ground troops (which ended fighting instead of the S. Vietnamese army which was as useless as the present Iraqi one is). We should have obliterated N. Vietnamese facilities and forests and water ways and roads and factories, etc. until they stopped.
This is not Nazi Germany, the last country defeated in a classic war. (Japan was won by overwhelming force; all subsequent wars were won or lost by overwhelming force or lack of it)
We don't need to trust them, we'll see what they deliver
Every time we let them close, they learn more about us, our plans and positions. That is the first mistake. When they turn around they use that knowledge to make friend with the other side, and hurt us. We are surrounded by Muslims in Iraq, FK. They hate Christians.
If Clinton had pulled out a pistol and shot dead a poor, elderly, disabled, gay, black woman on live global television, the Dems would have voted to acquit, saying that either the tape was doctored or that it was a Clinton double, or that it didn't matter because he was such a great president
Yup, that's the Rats for you.
CIA said "Slam Dunk". That is indisputable.
CIA either lied or was dead wrong. Take your pick.
If Israel followed every UN resolution they would all be dead today.
That's a conjecture.
The majority of members hate Israel and would be just fine if they were exterminated.
The Israelis are not known for good diplomatic skills. That has worked in their favor more than the other way around.
But the fact of the matter is that about 20-25%of Israel's population is Arab and growing much faster than the Jewish population. It is a mathematical certainty, unless something drastically changes this trend, that Arabs will be over 50% of the population in a matter of decades, and eventually will become the absolute majority in Israel itself.
So, time is working against the Jews there. Barring any population cleansing modalities, which have already been proposed (which smacks of the Nazi tactics applied to the Jews, whit irony!), Israel will disappear as a Jewish state by demographics and not warfare. the date can even be predicted.
It is trherefore in the best interest of Israel's Jewish population to seek a peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbors and to defy American-imposed views on ethnic minorities as inapplicable in most parts of the world, because some cultures cannot mix and be safe from extinction.
So, some sort of a Jewish-only state will have to be created that will be acceptable to both sides. Violence and wars will not solve the problem of our Israeli friends, and will not solve our problem that is a direct result of it.
Israeli military has gas masks but not a great number of civilians
Israelis have issued gas masks to civilian population s well.
(sorry for any spelling errors, this is in a rush, so apologies...)
Likewise my friend. :)
While our borders remain porous. Of 12 million or more illegals, how many could actually be terrorists? Could they be using Iraq as a diversionary tactic and a psycjological propaganda tool (defeating our will to fight), while they are slipping in by the thousands through our unsecured borders?
What can I say? It sure doesn't seem like the same person could hold both of Bush's policies on the border and Iraq, but yet it's true. So you're right that there could be any number of terrorists here right now. But I still think that the correct policy is to fight them over there, even though Bush is blowing it on the border. One of his policies certainly needs to change in order to match the other.
Entefada is not connected to what is going on in Iraq. Outwardly maybe, but the cause of entefada are unrelated to Iraq. The only relationship Iraq had to Palestinian terrorists is giving money and material assistance to relatives of suicide bombers (they call them "martyrs").
I see what you're saying, and I don't think entefada (intifada?) is working "together" with the insurgents. However, they do have extremely compatible goals. If entefada wins by defeating the Jews, then the insurgents all cheer and vice versa. ALL of them are very happy when Jews and Americans die. I will never forget the video of Palestinians dancing in the streets after hearing of 9/11. Arafat had a heart attack I'll bet. I fell off my chair laughing when I heard that he was donating blood to help the 9/11 victims. :)
It's like someone watching the front door for thieves while they are robbing your blind from the back yard entrance.
Yes, your assessment is right. If a southern border crosser(s) does launch a successful attack, Bush will rightfully bear the blame.
One thing they don't have is global reach. very few countries have, in fact, only one does, the US. Countries like Iran can affect neighboring countries, but for them to seriously confront us is out of the question. We can actually reduce Iran to a rubble and turn it into stone age without even having to fly over their territory. We could destroy their bridges, factories, oils wells, roads, railways, electrical grids, crops, waterways, institutions, etc. with nothing but guided missiles.
My understanding is that Russia still has full ICBM capability and I read that they have tested new road-mobile ICBMs in 2005 and 2006. Besides that, I can't prove but fully believe that Clinton gave (sold) critical guidance systems technology to the Chinese during his administration, and that they will have full ICBM capability if they don't already have it. If the Chinese have it, then North Korea can't be far behind. When that happens, any American hating tin-pot dictator with a fat wallet will have it. I don't think this is necessarily an imminent problem today, but it is inevitable that the crazies will one day have deliverable nukes. While our Patriot missiles performed reasonably well, I'm not aware that we could today repel a mass strike defensively.
Be that as it may, today's imminent problem is the smuggling in of even a dirty bomb or other WMDs, even across the southern border as you stated. That IS global reach. If a device is detonated, killing say, 100,000 people, who are we going to bomb? That's what worries me. No country would ever claim "credit". Only invisible terrorists would. I don't know if we could reasonably determine a country of origin from the blast zone or not. Even if we could, they would just claim it was stolen. No liberal president would ever retaliate based on best evidence. In this grim scenario, this leaves us as sitting ducks multiple times.
Once they realized they can do nothing to us without getting clobbered for every attempt, they would stop.
We'd have to seal the northern border too, and I don't see that possibly happening any time soon, barring a catastrophe.
This is not Nazi Germany, the last country defeated in a classic war. (Japan was won by overwhelming force; all subsequent wars were won or lost by overwhelming force or lack of it)
I've always thought of the Korean War as sort of a tie. How do you see it? And I agree with what you're saying. Germany was the last enemy we defeated in which both sides were comparable, and both fought with the sole purpose of winning. I've seen so many theories on why we did not fight to win in Vietnam I don't know what to believe about it.
Every time we let them close, they learn more about us, our plans and positions. That is the first mistake. When they turn around they use that knowledge to make friend with the other side, and hurt us. We are surrounded by Muslims in Iraq, FK. They hate Christians.
Clearly a significant number of them do. I suppose their choice will be to tolerate Christians for several years and live free, or push us out and live in enslavement forever. That is probably a hard choice for many.
FK: "If Israel followed every UN resolution they would all be dead today."
That's a conjecture.
Yes, it is only my opinion. I just try to imagine all other things being equal and the US and UK not being members of the UN. Given how corrupt I believe the UN to be, I don't see Israel surviving.
It is a mathematical certainty, unless something drastically changes this trend, that Arabs will be over 50% of the population in a matter of decades, and eventually will become the absolute majority in Israel itself.
As to these Arabs being Muslim, it appears that Europe awaits a similar fate. I suppose that we are comparatively lucky in that we are going to be taken over by Hispanics. :) I think they have already passed African-Americans in terms of total numbers in our country.
It is therefore in the best interest of Israel's Jewish population to seek a peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbors and to defy American-imposed views on ethnic minorities as inapplicable in most parts of the world, because some cultures cannot mix and be safe from extinction.
I agree with you that some sort of two state solution is probably in the Jewish long term interest. I've always been kind of a Netanyahu fan, and I know he hates it, but if what you're saying pans out, then it might be a reasonable way to go.
The real danger is here, not there. Our borders and our political-correctness pussy-footing with illegal immigration could very well be the Trojan Horse of Troy.
What will happen if one day we find out that we have one million terrorists in this country who slipped through our porous borders and remained unregistered along with millions of other illegal aliens?
What seems more urgent? Fighting them in Iraq or making sure all Muslims are tagged? It may not seem fair, but will fairness do for us one day when we face an army of formidable size that slipped through our back yard while we were looking for them three block down the street?
It's outright irresponsible not just of Bush, but of the US Congress as well.
If entefada wins by defeating the Jews, then the insurgents all cheer and vice versa
Jews are a tough nut to crack. They are the ultimate survivors. The only way the Muslims can win is by making the Israelis lose the political and moral upper hand—and by bleeding us (the U.S.) into unwillingness to fight, a war of attrition.
The first condition has been met largely because of Israel's lack of diplomatic tact. Israel has very few friends in the world. The second tactic is in the process of being met.
I will never forget the video of Palestinians dancing in the streets after hearing of 9/11
As the 9/11 was unfolding, the NJ police arrested a bunch of Israelis on the NJ shore dancing as well. It turns out they were not Israeli "art students" as they claimed but Israeli agents. Why were they dancing?
If the Chinese have it, then North Korea can't be far behind. When that happens, any American hating tin-pot dictator with a fat wallet will have it
China has half a dozen ICBMs. Korea could probably build one maybe two. Except for Russia, no country could fire at us at expect those missiles to reach us; they'd be blown out of the sky by our own defense shields in mid-flight.
But how does this relate to our insanity in Iraq?
Be that as it may, today's imminent problem is the smuggling in of even a dirty bomb or other WMDs, even across the southern border as you stated. That IS global reach
Absolutely! We are taking a serious chance of waking up one day and facing a million enemy soldiers in our neighborhoods armed with an array of smuggled WMDs. That's why this border situation is alarming and no one seems alarmed!
We are concerned with "rights" and feelings and there are cities that are giving open sanctuaries to these illegals because it's good for business! Do you understand that we do a lot of things in this country because it's good for business but not good for America? Business is myopic. It doesn't see far enough or care to see far enough. It only looks at profits, no ,matter where they come from. And it's profitable to hire someone for half the minimum wage and not have to pay socials security or insurance for the illegal workers. In fact they are not even on the books in many cases, so it's profitable that way too—money in the pocket, no paperwork, no taxes.
Instead of fining these business until they go out of business, and killing the demand—knowing that the illegals will leave on their own free will when the jobs dry up, we are offering amnesty! It's simple: no demand, no illegal immigration. Instead of concentrating on the source of the demand, we are concentrating on the consequence of the demand and then try to make that which is illegal—legal!
By stopping the unethical businesses that—for the love of money and nothing else—created the demand, we could create a self-generated exodus of illegals. But we will do nothing to curb capitalist greed, even if it clearly hurts our national interests. Something to think about.
In this grim scenario, this leaves us as sitting ducks multiple times
They are running circles around us, and probably can't figure out how did such idiots ever become a superpower.
I've always thought of the Korean War as sort of a tie
McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons when the Chinese communists broke through the northern border and drive them back right inot China. He was censured and retired for that. McArthur was the kind of general we need and the kind of politicians that lead. War is an extension of diplomacy and separating politics from the military is insane. The problem with Korea is that its ultimate goal, just as with Vietnam, was ambiguous. Our war against Germany and Japan were not. The goal was to defeat the enemy, and all his allies.
McArthur wanted to invade China. The US was in a perfect position of strength to affect that change and change the history for good in our favor. We could have defeated the Chinese communists and Russia was in no position to do anything. The politicians at home, including Pres. Truman were not ready for a real war, so he was censured and retired for insubordination. A shameful moment in our history, and a reminder that a president can make catastrophic mistakes. I hope this one is not one of them.
Yes, it is only my opinion. I just try to imagine all other things being equal and the US and UK not being members of the UN. Given how corrupt I believe the UN to be, I don't see Israel surviving.
How do you see Israel surviving?
As to these Arabs being Muslim, it appears that Europe awaits a similar fate
All the Israelis I spoke with always understood the Serb issue of Kosovo and Bosnia. The Serbs were under Muslim rule for 500 years and they know what they are doing. We, on the other hand, believe that one can be a Muslim and not hate Christians. We are putting our own noose around our neck. Europeans are in for a surprise. They will remember what the Serbs told them, but then it will be too late.
I agree with you that some sort of two state solution is probably in the Jewish long term interest. I've always been kind of a Netanyahu fan, and I know he hates it, but if what you're saying pans out, then it might be a reasonable way to go
Nethanyahu is a smart cookie. I like him as a realist. Israel is sadly divided. Half of Israelis are sworn pacifists; the other half are like rabid dogs. There is no middle. I don't blame the latter group because they are literally surrounded by a "sea" of Arabs who hate them and who wish them driven into the Mediterranean sea.
But, Israel will have to establish a peaceful-coexistence with its Arab neighbors sooner, hopefully, than later. Because the later they do the less likely the Arabs will agree. The numbers favor Arabs. The geography favors Arabs. There is no room to wiggle. Either Arabs or the sea. Not good choices.
Unfortunately, the more radical elements in Israel are myopic. Somewhat similar to our border issue. Being tough on terrorists in Iraq doesn't make us safer when our border are flooded by thousands and the number of illegals and possibly a strong fifth column is pouring into the US every day.
Likewise, being tough on Palestinians will not diminish the fact that Arabs have more babies than Israelis and that the disproportionate natality rate favors Arabs. To give you an example, in 1967 the Albanian population in Serbia's Kosovo province was about 65%. By 1990, it was 89%! How did this happen in just 23 years (about 1% a year)? Albanians have the largest natality rate in Europe. Some have as many as 4 wives (they are Muslims). They also smuggled illegals into Kosovo from neighboring Albania the way Mexicans cross our border unchecked.
The next ting you know, you have a demographic crisis on hand and you didn't even see it coming. Something to think about.
I tend to be less worried about that possibility because I don't think they're that organized. I think that before any number (of terrorists) like that get in they will strike hard. Once we have maybe 25,000-50,000 dead American bodies on the ground, then even the libs and RINOS will be forced to cave and support stricter border enforcement. NOT because they think it's a good idea, but because they will feel forced politically.
I am much more worried about the financial impact that tens of millions of low wage workers will have on the American taxpayer. The kook fringe is already calling for universal healthcare for ILLEGALS! It is inevitable. Private hospital e-rooms are already closing throughout the southwest because they can't afford to do business because of the illegals. The libs will say "there you go, the only answer is state run universal care". That of course will mean massive tax hikes and the end of the best health care system in the world.
What seems more urgent? Fighting them in Iraq or making sure all Muslims are tagged? It may not seem fair, but will fairness do for us one day when we face an army of formidable size that slipped through our back yard while we were looking for them three block down the street?
It's kind of funny. I've never been a big Roosevelt fan, but I do cut him some slack with the internment camps as a reasonable step in those times. If/when we get hit again from within, I can't see any of the current candidates on either side going even as far as you are suggesting. Even tagging would hurt the terrorists' feelings.
Jews are a tough nut to crack. They are the ultimate survivors. The only way the Muslims can win is by making the Israelis lose the political and moral upper hand—and by bleeding us (the U.S.) into unwillingness to fight, a war of attrition.
That sounds reasonable. I don't have a handle yet on this Olmert guy. The only time I see him in the news is for some new scandal or super low approval ratings.
As the 9/11 was unfolding, the NJ police arrested a bunch of Israelis on the NJ shore dancing as well. It turns out they were not Israeli "art students" as they claimed but Israeli agents. Why were they dancing?
That was a very bizarre story. As you said, they turned out to be Mossad spooks. They later denied on Israeli TV that they were dancing, but there were plenty of witnesses who said otherwise. I have no idea what that was about.
But how does this relate to our insanity in Iraq?
Not much, since my original position was that I don't think we have much to worry about in the near term from an ICBM attack. :)
Do you understand that we do a lot of things in this country because it's good for business but not good for America?
Yes, and that very well could be why Bush is (NOT) doing what he's doing. He's hurting the country and, of incomparably smaller importance, killing the party.
Instead of fining these business until they go out of business, and killing the demand—knowing that the illegals will leave on their own free will when the jobs dry up, we are offering amnesty! It's simple: no demand, no illegal immigration.
Absolutely correct. If we just enforced the laws that are already on the books, then we wouldn't need to round up 12 million illegals. They would go back on their own if there was no work. Another thing that frosts me is this "doing the work Americans won't do" baloney. Even in Agriculture, where something like one in four is an illegal, WHO ARE THE REST? Americans. Plus, no American WOULD work for the illegal wages being paid now to illegal workers. Pay a market wage and anyone can have as many workers as he wants. I DON'T CARE if I have to pay a little more for food because I'm still ahead if I don't have to pay for all the government freebies that the illegals are collecting now and will inevitably collect in the future! /rant :)
But we will do nothing to curb capitalist greed, even if it clearly hurts our national interests. Something to think about.
By itself, I don't have anything against "capitalist greed". :) However, I am no Gordon Gekko fan because he cheated. He broke the law just like all these employers are. They all deserve to go down. The amnesty bill would simply have made illegal practices LEGAL. As you said, that's very bad for America.
Thanks for the Korean War history. I wish we had stronger leaders like MacArthur too. BTW, have you seen the new Patten/George C. Scott Youtube video ("Patton" commenting on Iraq and current times)? There's at least one thread on it. Well made and worth the 7 minutes. I can give you a link if you want.
How do you see Israel surviving?
The US and UK need to continue to block for them at the UN. Israel must maintain a strong military. They also need to politically position themselves as only victims of terrorist aggression. Then they can respond appropriately. If Iran persists with nukes, and Israel can find them, then a preemptive strike may be necessary ...... again. I doubt we would give them any lip about it. Finally, they'll need to complete their own fence, and reach some sort of two state agreement, while gently trying to kick out as many Muslims as they can. All of this won't guarantee peace, but I think they'll be better off than they are now.
The next ting you know, you have a demographic crisis on hand and you didn't even see it coming. Something to think about.
That's right, and sadly too few people will be able to see it in order to stop it in time. I shutter to think what this world will look like in 50 years.
The whole tenor of the writing takes a shift just before that verse. Paul is now showing that Jews and Gentiles are ALL in the same boat:
Indeed ...Romans 3:9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
...
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Bump for a later read.
We watched the movie for the first time last night (24 Dec 2007) and found it quite good...
Will be interested to read the rest of this thread to get up to speed on this thread.
bttt
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.