Essay on Winning the War on Terror

[Webmaster]

The below essay has been attributed to Major General Vernon Chong. It is since been debunked as being authored by the General, but was forwarded to him by an attorney. Apparently he liked it, and forwarded it to some friends. Eventually his name got hung on it as the author. Although it is not written by Major General Chong, it does speak to the nature of the war that we are fighting. So I present it here for your comment. I will meanwhile break out the fire extinguisher and fire-proof suit!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State s is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (incuding 7,000 Polish priests). (seehttp://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.

If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil right during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpse through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. i To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. (NEVER THOUGHT OF THE INFILTRATION SCHEME, PROBABLY WORKING HERE RIGHT NOW. BET THEY INTEND ON INHERITING THE FRENCH'S NUKES, THEN WHAT?) The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the" peaceful Muslims??

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

[aplonis]

WAR IS A RACKET

Smedley Darlington Butler
Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Educated Haverford School

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919

Retired Oct. 1, 1931

Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932

Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

Excerpted: full text at...
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Webmaster]

Interesting, but not relevent to a war in which our survival is at stake. I hope that you have your prayer rug ready to go.

If you have doubt that this is a war for survival, see http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060903/D8JTLGTG0.html

The essence of the message, "Convert or die".

[Tony Dismukes]

Wow, there's a huge amount of stuff there that I disagree with pretty strongly. I can't stay up late enough tonight to write an essay refuting the whole thing, but let me get a few points off before I go to bed.

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home...

Based on the context of the article, it appears the writer considers the U.S. involvement in Iraq to be part of the war on terror. I don't see any way to defend this viewpoint, given that a) Iraq was not involved with the terror attacks on the U.S., b) the invasion diverted needed resources from catching Bin Ladin and building a stable government in Afghanistan and c) the end result of the Iraq invasion now seems likely to become either a failed state torn apart by civil war (thus a likely breeding ground for terrorists, which it wasn't under Hussein) or else a theocratic ally of Iran.

For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

What the heck does the writer think he means by "the duration"? How in the world would you know when the "war on terror" was over? There's no central government of terrorists to sign a peace treaty. The "war on terror" is just as indefinite as the "war on drugs". If we give up our civil rights for the duration of the "war on terror", then we've given them up permanently.

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

I'd agree with all of this except the "politically correct" piece. Democracies only lose their freedoms if they give them away - for example by proposing that civil rights be suspended for the duration of an ill-defined, infinitely prolonged "war."

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

Except that the majority of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not necessarily any of those things. General Taguba's report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.

Leaving aside the issue that there is no evidence the prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib were connected with Hussein's use of chemical weapons, these figures are wrong. Iraq did make extensive use of chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Perhaps 20,000 Iranian soldiers were killed outright, with another 80,000 or so injured. Iraq did use chemical weapons on the town of Halabja during the Iran-Iraq war (probably - a contrary theory was that the Iranians were responsible), killing somewhere between several hundred and several thousand civilians. (The U.S. senate passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act" in response, which would have cut off aid to Iraq, but the act was blocked by the Reagan administration.) Nasty stuff, but not even in the neighborhood of 400,000 Iraqi victims of chemical weapons.



It's getting late, and there's so much more to argue with. For the time being, just let me state that the terrorists do not present an existential threat to our country. The Soviet Union was an existential threat. Its nuclear arsenal could have wiped out civilization as we know it. Despite that, we managed to muddle along to a win in the Cold War without giving up our civil rights or betraying our principles. The terrorists, in contrast, have managed to kill fewer Americans than are killed by lighting strikes. The only way they can destroy America is by making us so afraid that we give up the freedoms and principles that make us better than so many other tin-pot dictatorships. How do we fight the terrorists? I'll quote George Will, so that no one accuses me of just reciting the words of namby-pamby leftists:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Anyway, that's all for tonight. I'll check back later.

[aplonis]

Interesting, but not relevent to a war in which our survival is at stake.

It is utterly simple in that our (the USA's) continual meddling, outright interfering in other nations internal affairs is the reason why we have such ardent enemies in the world today. We sought them out and earned them. Some few are raking in billions on this current racket as a direct and long-cultivated result. That is how Gen. Butler's astute observations apply to the current situatioin.

If we had not given them the Shah, Iran would not hate us near so much. We even backed Hussein when it suited our purpose. We back a very anti-democratic government in Saudi Arabia today. Each of those has, and some still do, earn us new enemies day by day.

The very existance of Isreal is, in essence, the direct result of a basically European problem, that Europe could not tollerate a minority and created such inhuman conditions as to require their mass emigration. And this was a military conquest of another territory long abandoned, with resulting violence and destruction. It was a lose-lose situation for the US. We weigh in one side and win for ourselves enemies from the other. We did that for religous reasons only. We earned those enemies. They hate us for good and ample reasons. It is no use playing the poor, wounded innocent. It won't wash. Had we kept aloof from that conflict, we'd be no part of it today.

Had there been a side of right to stand upon it would have been to insist that Europe accept its responsibilities and treat their own minorities fairly. But they have never done that. Europe's history is the bloodiest of all in that regard. Prior pogroms wiped out all but one. WW2 did its bit to wipe out one of the few remaining. The rest they hoped to shove off on somebody else. It was wrong at every stage. The result is as we have it today.

The Middle East struggled centuries to throw off the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. When at last it is done, not on their behalf, but as a side effect of WW1, then Europe exports another invader into their midst. Who among us is stupid enough to think the locals would take this kindly? Here in the US we invalidate a territorial claim that is abandoned for 20 years. How then to credit a 1000 year abandonment? It won't wash.

Take it as a fait acompli that Isreal exists. Nothing to do about it now, right or wrong. They did it on their own without our help or hindrance. The Isrealis held up their end utterly without our help in 1967. They might very well have done again and again, like as not. Wherefor our need to mix in after that? Once they'd proven themelves a winner, only then do we inter in to help the underdog? Again it will not wash. The whole business would have settled itself out by now if only external powers, namely us (US) would have stayed out of it. The USA is all the time proping up tyrants and dictators in the name of Liberty. Go figure why it is that we have ourselves so many enemies.

If the situation were turned around, what would this culture we have here do, do you suppose? If some foreign power came stomping in, dolled out incalculable fortunes in the aid of our enemies and told us what we had ought to do, how would our citizenry react? We'd get even with them any old way we could. We'd stike them at any point we could reach. Ask the Brittish how good Americans are at fighting by the rules. And here we are comming off all high and mighty about how, when we have the conventional advantage, native combatants on their own homeland don't fight by our rules. It is a comedy of terrors.

Haliburton and all of Bush's cronies are raking in vast fortunes on this most current racket. The game has not changed in all this time. Gen. Smedley Butler is still on target even today. That is how it applies to the current situation.

Gan Uesli Starling
Kalamazoo

[Webmaster]

Of course, it is all our fault. I should have known. The Haliburnton card gets thrown of course.

Smedley Butler never fought in any major conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

He never fought in any war which was indeed one of national survival (like WWII). Instead, he fought in the Boxer Rebellion, Occupation of Veracruz (1914) and the Occupation of Haiti. All wars in the early part of the last century when the US was contemplating "imperial" notions. That was the perspective from which he wrote and became a leader in the anti-interventionist movement.

Oh I forgot that it is also the Western nations (Europe) and the Jews fault too.

[Cliff Hargrave]

What a bunch of socialist propaganda. Wars only exist to make a few rich. Typical conspiracy theory stuff.

The leftist always point the finger at us, crying about US intervention in others affairs, while ignoring the intervention of their heros, the former Soviet Union. The reason we did meddle in other countries affairs was to stem the tide of the communist world takeover. Alot of times we were faced with bad choices overall. Support a dictator that was friendly to us, or do nothing and allow the communist world revolution to take hold and then we would have a dictator that was not friendly to us. Well, we won that one. The USSR folded. Now all the left over problems of the cold war are suddenly just our fault alone.

Leftist are the most dangerous people in this world. Way more dangerous than muslims. Who do you think taught the muslims what terrorism was to begin with? Now they destroy from within. I guess 100 million people murdered for their ideology isn't enough, they will not stop until the USA is just a steaming pile of socialist worker paradise.

[SteyrAUG]

Based on the context of the article, it appears the writer considers the U.S. involvement in Iraq to be part of the war on terror. I don't see any way to defend this viewpoint, given that a) Iraq was not involved with the terror attacks on the U.S., b) the invasion diverted needed resources from catching Bin Ladin and building a stable government in Afghanistan and c) the end result of the Iraq invasion now seems likely to become either a failed state torn apart by civil war (thus a likely breeding ground for terrorists, which it wasn't under Hussein) or else a theocratic ally of Iran.

I think I can help you.

9-11-2001 we dramatically learned our country was vulnerable to attack. It was demonstrated that our enemies did not need complex missile delivery systems to harm us. Suddenly somebody remembered Iraq had an inventory of chemical/biological weapons. This has never been debated, ask the Kurds about it.

Then it suddenly occurred to folks that all that would be needed for a Bio/Chem attack on say Los Angeles would be for a terrorist group to buy these weapon from Iraq. Certainly Iraq wasn't fond of the US and has a verified history of dealing with terrorists organizations.

So we did what any reasonable country would do. We asked the UN to verify the status of Saddamns Bio/Chem arsenal. Saddam basically screwed with the UN, denied them access to this or that and was generally uncooperative. Then it was learned UN inspectors from France and Russia had been bribed by Saddam.

This all would leave a reasonable person to conclude he was hiding something. So the President had to make a decision. Either do NOTHING and risk another attack on the US by terrorists or do what the UN failed to do. If Bush had done NOTHING and there was a Bio/Chem attack on Los Angeles then every Democrat on the planet (and a bunch of folks here) would have gone on and on about how Bush KNEW and DID NOTHING. Michael Moore would have made a movie detailing the CIA information that all but proved Saddam had these weapons and would likely provide them to terrorists. He'd probably speculate that Bush allowed the attack to happen because of a secret relationship with the Iraqi dictator that was started by Bush Sr. and would conclude this is the reason he wasn't removed from power during GWI.

So we went with Option 2. And we didn't find any NBC type weapons. Saddam might simply have not had anymore, perhaps they were smuggled out to Syria, perhaps they are still hidden in Iraq. Anything is possible.

But after we defeated the Iraqi army and removed Saddams power base the war changed. Even if there still were NBC weapons and they had been removed to Syria, certainly Saddam was no longer a threat. But a new threat emerged and changed the dynamic of the war.

Insurgents from the entire Middle East flooded into Iraq to fight the great Satan in much the same way hippies flooded to Woodstock in the 60s. As a result we couldn't just say "Well I guess there aren't any weapons and leave." The power vacuum would have been filled by Islamic radicals and they would have created a new Islamic state that would be a twin of Iran. So that meant we had to stick around and keep fighting insurgents until we have a stable Iraq that can run itself. And that hasn't been easy.

It's hard to construct infastructure when workers get kidnapped and decapitated on video.

So despite what you believe, Iraq is currently GROUND ZERO for the war on terrorism. It is where the terrorists are because they want to kill Americans. And we are fighting a similar conflict in Afghanistan, you are correct. That is because there are also terrorists there who want to kill Americans.

This is because our enemies don't fight us one at a time. In WWII we were fighting Germany and Japan (not to mention Italy) at the same time. And I'm sure some enlightened individual made the suggestion that the war in Germany was wrong. After all Germany never attacked us and our war with them diverted needed resources from out war with Japan.

So that is the situation. The current decision is equally crappy.

Say "Oh well that didn't work like we expected" and leave, allowing a Iranian type state just as you suggested.

or

Stay there until Iraq is strong and independent enough to protect itself and it's new government.

Either decision sucks.

If it were me, I'd have preferred to just bomb the holy crap out of them, remove Saddams ability to rule, then leave and tell them to not make us return.

[Tony Dismukes]

The reason we did meddle in other countries affairs was to stem the tide of the communist world takeover.

Cliff, could you explain how the U.S./U.K.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 was a necessary step in stopping Soviet world takeover?

Also, could you please clarify something else for me? A number of folks on this board, for example Gordon, Barry, and myself, would probably qualify as leftist compared to your own political leanings. Are you claiming that we regard the Soviets as heros, taught the Islamists about terrorism, are trying to destroy our society from within, and are the most dangerous people in the world?

[Cliff Hargrave]

Cliff, could you explain how the U.S./U.K.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 was a necessary step in stopping Soviet world takeover?

Not Soviet, but certainly socialist. Mossadegh immediately seized the British oil companies and nationalized them, the same thing Chavez did. Was it a good idea? Probably in retrospect now it certainly wasn't.

Also, could you please clarify something else for me? A number of folks on this board, for example Gordon, Barry, and myself, would probably qualify as leftist compared to your own political leanings. Are you claiming that we regard the Soviets as heros, taught the Islamists about terrorism, are trying to destroy our society from within, and are the most dangerous people in the world?

Depends on how far left you lean. Only you can answer that.

[Tony Dismukes]

Depends on how far left you lean. Only you can answer that.

Hmmm ... I don't believe your quote above specified a certain extreme fringe of the left wing. I believe you just said "leftists." Offhand, that unqualified label would probably encompass at least a third of the American electorate and a majority of the Canadian and European electorate. Hard to imagine why you'd want to travel so far to fight middle-eastern extremists when you've got such deadly enemies here at home.

Just for the record, the majority of my family and friends would probably self-identify with the left. Oddly enough, I've never heard a single one of them say anything complimentary about the Soviet government. Nor have I ever heard any of them say anything supportive of terrorists. Doesn't seem to me that any of us are deadly destroyers of civilization either, but perhaps I'd be able to answer that better if you made some sort of argument rather than unsupported assertion.

If I were going to play the game of demonizing half the political spectrum by identifying them with the worst extremists associated with that side of the political divide, I suppose I could suggest that right-wingers were all big fans of the Nazis and therefore support death camps. I could point out that in the same period of history when a very small minority of the American left-wing supported the Soviets, the majority of the American right-wing was strongly opposed to basic civil rights for blacks, and suggest that therefore right-wingers are KKK members. If Cliff asked whether I included him in that tally of Nazi-supporting KKK members, I could say "I don't know, only you can say how far right-wing you are."

I could do that, but it would be wrong. The vast majority of right-wingers don't believe admire the Nazis, any more than the majority of left-wingers admire the Soviets. In the U.S. today, the majority of right-wingers fully believe in civil rights for blacks. (Thanks largely to generations of struggle by liberals.) Furthermore, I'm willing to bet money that Cliff Hargrave is neither a fascist nor a KKK member.

Part of what makes this country great is the freedom of speech so that we can argue about what directions are best for us as a society and as individuals. We can use that freedom to argue ideas, or we can use it to call names. It's your decision which way you want to go.

Personallly, I'll stick with arguing ideas.

[Cliff Hargrave]

Hmmm ... I don't believe your quote above specified a certain extreme fringe of the left wing.

You know I am talking about the fringe and my socialist propaganda post was aimed at Gan's post, not yours. I thought the term leftist was common for the far left fringe. I never took it to mean a regular old Democrat.

If you just want to argue then start a "I want to argue with Cliff thread" and we can take on any issue you want.

Oh and the KKK and Nazi stuff is just plain silly. You wont see anything like that at any Republican get together, but you sure seem to find alot of this stuff at war protests:


Perfect example of why political threads turn into train wrecks.

[Tony Dismukes]

You know I am talking about the fringe and my socialist propaganda post was aimed at Gan's post, not yours. I thought the term leftist was common for the far left fringe. I never took it to mean a regular old Democrat.

Actually, no I didn't know that. I know plenty of non-communistic liberals who will happily wear the title of "leftist". I've commonly seen "leftist" used on right-wing sites to describe not only regular Democrats, but even apostate Republicans/former Republicans who have turned against the Iraq war. Folks like Ann Coulter write books using vitriol exactly like yours explicitly aimed at regular old Democrats. As far as I could tell, you were indeed demonizing half the political spectrum. That's why I asked who you were including in that blanket condemnation. Your original answer did nothing to reassure me of your intent.

Thank you for clarifying what you were talking about.

[David Craik]

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

I agree with a lot of what Ol' Gimlet Eye has to say, though there is no such thing as a 'congressional' Medal of Honor.

Having a 'War on Terror' seems much like waging a 'War on Rain' to me, and if we wanted proof of WMDs it should have been quite easy to produce a receipt with a signature on it, as we gave him the stuff in the 80's. Of course, that would have made us appear somewhat hypocritical...

[James O'Neill]

General Smedley Darlington Butler was flat out, hands down, the most important American patriot to live in the last 100years. With all due respect, before y'all go labelling the man and then spouting off about "conspiracy theories" you may want to get a clue about who exactly you are speaking about. And what it is they are most famous for.

Ever hear of a little thing called the Business Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot)? No mere conspiracy theory that - but instead a matter of Congressional record.

Yes Virginia, there was a plot by a cable of billionaire industrialists to replace our representative democracy with a Fascist Dictatorship in 1933. It's not a theory. It is a fact. The reason Mr. Butler is such an important patriot is because he was approached by said conspirators to be said dictator! (Newsreel wherein Mr. Butler speaks about the coup attempt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PUmMC5P8IE)

You won't read about that one in your history books though now will you?

Personally, I think the reason we are in Iraq has a heck of allot more to do with Sadam's plan to start trading his oil for Euros instead of Dollars than anything else. I think that idea speaks far louder about the nature of this War and why we decided to occupy Iraq than the party line coming out of Washington. Or wherever that article came from.

[Tony Dismukes]

Oh and the KKK and Nazi stuff is just plain silly.

Yes, and if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that was part of my point.

[Tony Dismukes]

James, here's your corrected link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot?

Thanks for that pointer, by the way. This was an incident I hadn't heard about.

[James O'Neill]

Thanks for the corrected link.

...Think about what other Fascist dictatorships came to power in the mid 1930's. And which side of WWII we may have come down on had the business plot succeeded.

[Gordon Nore]

A number of folks on this board, for example Gordon, Barry, and myself, would probably qualify as leftist compared to your own political leanings.

Offhand, that unqualified label would probably encompass at least a third of the American electorate and a majority of the Canadian and European electorate. Hard to imagine why you'd want to travel so far to fight middle-eastern extremists when you've got such deadly enemies here at home.

Tony,
You are correct in identifiying me as a leftist. Since my name came up, I'm going to chime in briefly on this thread to talk about those terms, "left" and "right." Tony, I thought it was interesting that you describe a majority of Canadians as leftists. Among the three mainstream parties in Canada, The Conservatives (right), Liberals (centrist), and the New Democratic Party (left), only the first two have held office federally. The New Democrats have had formed the government in a handful of provinces at different times (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario come to mind -- there must be others). Then I realized that from the perspective of any given American citizen, it would appear that Canada as a whole is leftist, perhaps even socialist, in that regardless of how people vote, there is a strong sentiment here about protecting our national health care program, which is definitely a socialistic enterprise in that it endeavours to provide a consistent level of care to all citizens. (By the way, this is just an example -- I'm not trying to start a health care thread.)

Now let me tear a little deeper into Canada's electoral fabric -- when I vote in a federal election for my member of parliament, my ballot may have upward of a dozen candidates on it, most of whom will never see the inside of parliament. The Communist Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninists, the Christian Heritage Party, the Natural Law Party, the Green Party, the Rhinocerous Party. While the Green Party has a shot at winning seats down the road, these others don't even register statistically. A vast majority left-wing voters in my country want nothing to do with Soviet apologists, just as a vast majority of right-wing voters want no part of any party that yearns for an all-white, all-Christian Canada.

What I am getting at is that both individual and national perspective go into defining left and right. The terms are relative in my view.

[AllanJGAnderson]

Mr. Dismukes,
The Iraq war initially had nothing to do with the war on terror. BUT the insurgents are largly supported and endorsed by terrorist networks and the Iraq war has itself been picked up by Al-quaeda. Excuse me but who was Al-Zarqawi? And what country did we nab him in?