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.