Free Republic

Related to this, Paypal has said they will stop business in NC because of the new law. I use Paypal and I have a lot of customers in NC (I’m also from there). I just emailed them telling them that if they cut me off from my NC customers, I will cut them off from me. Anyone else who has a Paypal account, I urge you to contact them with a similar message.

Also, as a means of protest, maybe bunches of men should gather in crowds and say out loud “I feel like I’m a woman today” and all go into the ladies room. That might get some attention.

All sounds good to me, but a healthy dose of skepticism is in order with Cruz too. It’s quite possible he’s doing all this just for public consumption and some hidden unsavory motive of his own so I’m not yet convinced.

On the other hand I’ve never heard of anyone in Congress getting up and just blistering a senate majority leader or speaker from his own party like this. Maybe he’s serious. (My lips to God’s ear...)

Brian’s definitely a lefty but I like him anyway.
At least he’s not a lefty of the humorless, screechy, gasping and pearl-clutching variety. And he does really good impressions. I don’t mind if he stays.

Not true. They have internet access.

But even if it was true, the effect OVER HERE is more what I'm concerned about. His gaffe denying the existence of gays in Iran should be something of a wake-up call for those on the left with a milder strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Apparently he isn't quite as media- or audience-savvy as we thought.

What exactly were they charged with — in other words, what laws did they break?

You know, it's hard to find good friends. These horrible backward people are always so suspicious of our noble intent.

Extremely naive. Assumes there were all these democratic America-loving angels waiting in the wings as alternatives to these alliances of convenience and we deliberately chose the devils just so you could "sigh" at us with contempt.

In other words, what was this clearly superior alternative in each and every one of these cases you cite that the whole world missed? Who were these angels?

Not our fault if all of you are technically lame.

Not our fault if the pollsters only call landlines when so many people under fifty only have cellphones or VoIP either.

What does any of that have to do with whether it was an accurate poll?

We engaged in nation building in Japan and Germany after WW2. I suppose Ron Paul would have been against that as well.

The problem with Somalia or Yugo style nation building (Clinton style) is that it's done in an extremely half-a$$ed manner with far more concern about focus groups and "world opinion" than we're already suffering. (You think it's bad NOW...) The motivation is moral preening, making us appear to be compassionate in the eyes of the "enlightened" so we'll be called "progressive" and "evolved" at Manhattan or Hollywood dinner parties -- and actual results be damned.

Problem is the public doesn't have the stomach for a drawn-out involvement in a fight where we don't even have a side. This leads to rules of engagement designed to avoid casualties but which also ensure defeat, and -- ironically -- often increase bloodshed on all sides.

There is a totally different set of incentives here:

CLINTON STYLE: We're trying to help people and just be generally be nice (or more importantly APPEAR to be doing good to brown nose European/PC elites), and we'll avoid any real fighting that might actually make a difference for the locals and quickly pull out with egg on our face the moment the first image of a dead GI appears on TV.

BUSH DOCTRINE STYLE: We either defeat Islamist terrorism or we start memorizing the Koran.

Victory in such a war means draining the fever swamp of terrorism -- e.g., democratizing the Middle East. Basically the same as post-WW2 "nation building" but without the "post" part -- it's done on the fly, OJT. This means a learning curve and inevitable mistakes. So quit crying over failures, there are always failures in war, yes, even by the winning side, which sometimes makes even more mistakes than the losers (see Civil War). You don't have the luxury of just taking your ball and going home to sob in the corner of your room while Mom bakes you some cookies, because she'll be dead because the bully followed you home and got to her first on his way to you.

Ron Paul is just another neo-isolationist Democrat ostrich whose foreign policy ideas hang entirely on the assumption of good will from those hellbent on killing us.

I must have missed it, but it was never clear to me. But I'll take you at your word now. But it isn’t really a war if the instigator escapes us either. And OBL and the entire top AQ leadership must be killed and their base of support and those who harbor them must be exposed and/or destroyed.

I agree completely, but limiting it to just AQ would be a mistake. Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, and any and all other Islamist terror groups or militias must be dealt with the same way.

And then there's Iran.

It didn’t negate everything. I did ask, and still ask, do you believe killing OBL will end the war? And if so, would your strategy, if you were calling the shots, be to kill OBL and then go home?

Thanks.

Apparently, Snopes and other sources have repudiated the quote as legitimate.

I didn't see this until after my post above, so ignore the first part.

Would you do the same for your Bush quote....AND place it in context?

You also mentioned that we "would have" executed Hitler if he hadn't taken himself out first. But when do you suppose that would have happened? As with Goering & Co., it would have happened AFTER THE WAR WAS WON, and not a moment sooner. It will be the same with OBL, but you keep trying to skip to the trial before there's even an arrest, as if we could skip over something as apparently trivial and tangential to you as winning the war first.

And therein is my point I keep making but you keep evading so I will ask the question directly: Do you believe that killing or capturing OBL will end the war? There are only three possible answers -- yes, no, and I don't know. Choose one and make your case for it.

On a more general level, I don't seem to understand what your position on the war is other than it's either kill OBL and leave everybody else alone or you're just reflexively against whatever your opponents in here are for, or against whatever Bush is for. In other words, if you were calling the shots from 9/11 to this day, what would be your strategy/plan for defeating Islamic terrorism? Would it be just kill OBL and go home?

You've succeeded in mischaracterizing everyone's view, including the president (your quote below notwithstanding) that we don't care where OBL is or what happens to him. We do and Bush does, and for Bush, the proof is in the pudding. You KNOW that if they were looking for Saddam, his sons, Zarqawi, and all the other high level Baathists or jihadis who are -- please note -- now all dead, they are sure as hell looking for OBL with a vengeance. That Bush hasn't personally briefed you on what intel and the snake-eaters are doing to find him doesn't mean he isn't looking for him or that he doesn't care.

For yet another WW2 analogy, you seem to be suggesting that because we went after Germany we didn't care about Japan. Yes, it was "Germany first", but Japan didn't exactly get off light. They absorbed the two A-bombs, plus a LOT of conventional B-29 raids, some of which were even more destructive and deadly than both A-bombs together. And Tojo and his henchmen were executed too, but again not until the surrender was signed and hostilities ceased.

There is no-one in here who doesn't want to see OBL's head on a pikestaff. But our first concern is winning the war. If you believe it's all about getting OBL and nothing else, maybe you should change your tagline to read "I really don't know what constitutes victory. I have no idea and I don't care. It's not that important."

My apologies — but it appears Bush has the right overall attitude, e.g., he would rather win the war first. Roosevelt had the same view in defeating Germany first before deciding what to do with Hitler, though Hitler apparently took himself out of the game before any such decision could be made.

Also, there’s no need for name-calling.

Which fact-finding bodies are these? I actually used some of them, like the Duelfer Report from the Iraq Survey Group. Have you read any of it? As for why some of this stuff isn't trumpeted, it's something of a mystery and a source of frustration, but one very strong possibility is the risk of exposing sources and methods in some cases. Or maybe you work for the NY Times so you would like them exposed?

On the other hand, Bush has never come out and openly defended supply side economics either. But by your logic, that's proof that he never signed into law or even proposed any tax cuts.

The U.N., under whose auspices Bush wanted to invade, rejected that there was adequate evidence that Saddam possessed WMD.

Are you serious? You're touting the UN as a reliable source for anything?

The UN also rejected that they were involved in the Oil For Food Scandals. They, like France and Germany, had a financial stake in the status quo in Iraq. No amount of evidence would have convinced them. Kofi Annan, after endless cheat-and-retreats and the expulsion of UNSCOM weapons inspectors in the 90's, said of Saddam that "We can do business with this man." (Apparently he meant on a personal level involving his son and cronies.)

The UN also rejected the idea that Darfur technically qualifies as genocide and therefore refuse to do anything about it. They rejected the charges against them funneling aid intended for the NK people to Kim Jong Il. The UN apparently rejected the idea of sending peace-keeping troops into Africa that wouldn't rape underage girls. The UN includes on its Human Rights Commission countries that do not in any way, shape or form recognize human rights within their borders. While such tyrants sit on its Human Rights Commission, the UN rails constantly against America and Israel but not a peep is heard from them about Cuba or Syria or China or North Korea or Iran.

Shall I go on?

You have the right to a private truth.

Relativistic nihilistic nonsense. Facts don't care what anyone thinks of them.

I'm not objecting a great deal since it's not unusual. I just think you ought to admit it.

Objecting to what? Admit what?

If sanctions were lifted, then it would be legal anyway.

The UN resolutions and the terms of the '91 cease fire would still have been in place, so no it wouldn't be legal.

We gave him the anthrax cultures and aided his war against Iran.

We didn't give him VX or sarin or any of the other stuff. You can thank Germany for that. Over 50% of Saddam's military aid was from the USSR/Russia. 13% from France, and 5% from Germany. USA was less than 1%.

Your new tagline is a willful Harry Reid-esque distortion of what I and others have said. I will repeat for the last time that we definitely need to kill or capture OBL, I just vehemently dispute the notion that doing so will end the war. Apparently you think AQ will lay down arms if OBL is killed, but I don't. Can I make it any plainer?

Totally missing my point. I never said or even thought "let OBL escape". NEVER. Only that killing/capturing him is not synonymous with victory. He has to be found, dead or alive, but just don't think that when we do find him, AQ will quit.

In truth, Iraq is an entirely separate issue as our leaders never did tell us that al-Qaeda was in Iraq...

Not true. Powell's presentation included the late Abu Zarqawi, who at the time was heading an affiliated group called Ansar al Islam in the Kurd region.

Also note that killing Zarqawi did not bring victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Don't misunderstand -- it has helped us get where we are now and as with OBL, I was all in favor of the Wanted Dead Or Alive policy on him, but I never thought killing him would make AQ lay down arms. And whaddaya know, I was right.

Iraq was not and is not even remotely "irrelevant". It had a long, long history of harboring and supporting Islamic terrorists, from Abu Nidal (Achille Lauro) to sending $25,000 to the parents of Palestinian suicide bombers. AQ was in Iraq before 2003 and even attending meetings with representatives of the Saddam government long before that in Sudan, brokered by Hassan al Turabi. There is also the airliner shell at Salman Pak that was used for training on taking over an airliner. There is also the fact that to this day, the Czech intel stands by its story that Mohammad Atta met with Iraq gov't reps in Prague prior to 9/11.

Saddam didn't have to be sitting at the table with OBL as they planned 9/11, he just had to be providing support for AQ of any kind at all. That, not WMD, was more than enough for me to declare war on Saddam whether he ever had WMD or not, and I think Bush made a bad decision by not emphasizing all this instead of emphasizing WMD.

But since you bring it up, it's indisputable that Saddam had WMD, and the absence of weapons was not enough. The burden was on him under the various UN resolutions to prove he had destroyed them. He refused. Instead throughout the 90's and in the run-up to the invasion, he played endless games with the inspectors, cheating and retreating. The Mossad says at least some of these weapons are in Syria. Satellite photos show a convoy of trucks going west across the Syrian border shortly before the invasion that the Mossad is convinced was carrying WMD.

Iraq, like nearly every Arab country, was also a client state of the USSR. According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, head of Caucescu's equivalent of the KGB who defected, these client states were taught a strategy called "sarindar", which means "quick exit", e.g., techniques for hiding WMD. There were various ingenious strategies for this. One great example was Libya, which managed to get one of its sites crossed off the CIA's list of potential illegal weapons manufacture. Knowing that American human intel in the region was non-existent and relied almost entirely on satellite imagery and telecom intercepts, they burned a bunch of tires in the courtyard of the site, creating the illusion that the place was on fire. As the tires burned, they painted scorch marks on the facility so after the fire was out, it would look to a satellite like the building really had burned.

It worked. Libya was taught this by Pacepa, and though he did not teach these techniques to the Iraqis himself, he says it is extremely unlikely that there were any USSR client states that weren't taught how to do this. The whole interview with Pacepa is a great read:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D162656E-9C26-4FF4-BE93-3C64CCC1FFCD}

Here's one of the money quotes from Pacepa:

Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam’s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find “more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes” containing documentation “dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.” He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made “Sãrindar” plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a “spontaneous administration of tribal justice.” Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.

There are also vast areas of Iraq that haven't been searched, which would take years to cover even without having to fight off AQ, Saddam loyalists and Sunni and Shia militias. They found 30 Mig fighter-bombers buried in the sand west of Baghdad. (Just google "Migs in the Sand" if you don't believe me.) If they can do that, what might they have done with much smaller crates of chemical artillery rounds, etc? A lot easier to move and hide than a 60-foot long 20-foot high jets. They also discovered, per Charles Duelfer, a "just-in-time" delivery system to make bio weapons, dual use technology that could be converted almost overnight to weapons production with weapons coming off the line within 30 days of Saddam giving the order.

Last but not least, just the physical positioning of Iraq in the ME is very strategic. First, in combination with Afghanistan, it brackets Iran with two fledgling democracies, in part to serve as a morale boost for the majority of Iranians who don't exactly love their theocracy government. It sits central in the Gulf region, and controlling it means placing significant limits on the ability of our enemies to travel east-west. Most of all, as mentioned earlier, it takes away a base, bank, armory and training ground from Islamist terror orgs. So, no, Iraq was not and is not "irrelevant".

SA is an ally, in the way the USSR was an ally in WW2. Temporary. At least until Iraq is stabilized anyway.

Saddam is deposed and executed. But Osama, who killed thousands of Americans, is "irrelevant" to the War On Terror?

First you to present yourself as Mr. Rational, all about facts and evidence. Now you're going for the Oprah award?

What the 9/11 families or anyone else feels about bin Laden is irrelevant to any reasonable definition of victory. Sure, everybody would like to see him at the end of a rope, but that would be just the cherry on top of genuine victory, not the victory itself. Ascribing anymore significance to it than that is pure emotionalism. If bin Laden is alive but is totally isolated with an overwhelming majority of his followers dead or otherwise incapacitated and no-one else interested in being thrown into the meat grinder, we win. If he's dead but the jihadi terror machine is alive and well, we lose.

My concern is that if people get caught up in using bin Laden's capture or death as the sole yardstick for victory, we could end up quitting too soon and lose.

Atlantic Coast Conference? What’s the general’s intel on the Tarheels/Bluedevils/Wolfpack hoops this year?

Well, looks like you gave up on me but you hung in there a lot longer than most. Thanks for being willing to hear me out. It’s all I could ask.

God be with ye!

Whether Osama is ever captured or killed is irrelevant to victory. Al Capone is dead but the mob is alive and well in Chicago. Likewise Gorbachev is alive but the USSR is dead, though Putin is trying to revive it. It's a bad idea to equate Osama's capture or death with victory because people will make the mistake of thinking it's over, when the Islamist ideology and machine would still be intact.

Wrecking the Islamist machine itself is the key. This will require a lot of spec ops work, and especially infiltration. But it can be done. If we have the will, there is a way. If we don't have the will, we don't deserve a way.