1reguL8NSTi

http://hammernews.com

The point is worthy of notice but look where it came from. Not a very reliable source. It's a site founded on bashing the current administration which obviously blows every minute discrepancy totally out of proportion. If you think that they were so arogant to just walk in and start some kind of party with the Iraqis thinking everything was going to be just peachy you're delusional.

psoper

Aside from the questionable credibility of the source, which I'll grant you-


I think the point of the article was that sort of scenario was exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld told us would happen, remember the "flowers at their feet" rhetoric? and just maybe, if we'd done it differently, if we'd actually acted in the best interest of the Iraqi civilian population by providing the troop strangth and command needed for safeguarding weapons caches, utilities, and other essential entities as the former dictatorship crumbled- that might have allowed a smoother transition into a "post-Saddam" era-, it might have been almost that simple.

A lot of people were against the war on priciple- that the USA shouldn't be the country that unilaterally initiates an armed conflict.

Many more of us were against it because we recognized that the cowboys in charge had no idea what they were getting into, and without a clear plan to win the peace, it doesn't matter who wins the war.

1reguL8NSTi

Yeah, everything is 20/20 in hindsight. As afar as the "it doesn't matter who wins the war", you can't be serious. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in our lifetimes. 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 States 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; Oklahoma City - Murrah Federal Building, 1995; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yemen, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 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, Clinton, and Bush 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. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslims. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25 percent. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominantly 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 ***** for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the *****, 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 an others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., 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 *****, 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? 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: Can we lose this war? 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 that 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 percent 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 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent 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 rights 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 of 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 types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of 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 corpses 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. 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. 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. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the Politicians and media of our country, and the free World! Please forward this to any you feel may want, or need to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must unite!

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

the root cause of your views is warped and wrong, nor have i ever seen such a psuedo intellectual analysis of something by someone who was so bias and ethnocentric.

This isnt about religions, this is about a way of thought, a way of life. This in its purest form is the same as the luddite uprisings that flamed across the english country side so long ago.

They only hate us because they see their way of life, their way of thought, their way of being erroding under the force of technological and societal changes. Changes which they can only attribute as being "western" in nature. Just so happens we are the "mecca" for this new brand of "ideology" that is sweeping the globe (no thanks to technologies such as the intraweb and telecommunications). Look i could write on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on (get the idea?) about this subject but it would be in your own interests to read up a bit on the luddite uprisings.

its the same **** just a different time, a different place. Even the whole religious angle as well (many luddites viewed the capitalists as godless infidels, or worse devil possesed demons)...

Do some research, then holla back yo!

psoper

As far a losing or winning the "war" I meant the initial show of force, the primary armed conflict- the point we had reached when W posed on the flight deck saying "Mission Accomplished"

But I think you are still believing a lot of misconceptions that they have been promoting;

on point 1, I agree the "threats to America" pre-date 9-11, but to lump all of those acts together under the banner of "international terrorism" ignores the reality that several of these were conducted by different groups sometimes with very different agendas, but pretty much not one of them was addressed in any way shape or form by our invading and occupying Iraq.

on point 2; poppycock, envy of our position is the largly touted red herring that has pretty much no basis in reality whatsoever. (I didn't know Tim McVeigh was a muslim?). To say that none of blame lies with democrats or republicans is again ignoring facts, in this case that it is the fault of both parties for conducting a foreign policy involving covert interventionism and support of brutal dictators and illigitimate tyrants like the Saudi family in the best interests of US corporations, regarless of any political fallout from such policies.

Especially our "shoot first ask questions later" approach to "diplomacy" that seems to be underlying our direction under republican administrations, but democrats really have done nothing to counter these trends- that is why some foreigners feel a need to sacrifice themselves to get at us.

But I really think that the number and degree of these extreme elements is (well at least was) far less than we've been told, and apart from the terrorist breeding ground we've made in Iraq, a lot of the immediate threat was significantly reduced after our excursions into Afghanistan and disruption of Al-CIAda.


I would still contend that rather than a war- in reality we have a completely out of control law enforcement issue with these so-called terrorist networks, that we should be fighting it using far more behind the scenes tactics and trying to build support amongst the civilians of those regions rather than forcefully occupying and dictating how they should be governed.

I've said it before and yet so many people cannot seem to grasp the concept- what if the USA was overrun and occupied bty some foreign country, certainly any one of us would become "terrorist insurgents" in the eyes of the occupiers in that situation.

That is the exact situation we have created and are trying to enforce in Iraq, so that while this war is supposed to target only radical militant islamists, we have expanded it to include anyone in Iraq who is opposed to our presence there- and that simply is not going to go away.

As long as we are percieved as a foreign occupying force in Iraq we will be losing, we are losing now and we will continue losing until that perception is changed, because right now all that is left is the hearts and minds- which too often, sadly, the soldiers can no longer relate to.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

posting so that everyone knows i edited my intial post..

1reguL8NSTi

I agree, that was an arogant, misinformed, ignorant move on his part. A prime example of "counting your chickens before they hatch".

I never disputed that. I agree, they weren't dealt with the same way but WMDs were a major concern when we invaded Iraq (and again, that is yet to be varified even though I am "sure" they had possession of them)

I think in many ways they do envy us. That's not so say there's not a lot of hate involved but I think it is a motivating factor. Far from the only one but I think it's there. Let's face it, they're haters.


And again, I think we are going about the war in Iraq wrong. We need to start letting them stand up for themselves. Still give them assist but get Joe Private convey driver out of there and start letting Iraqis care about Iraqi problems.

1reguL8NSTi

I will do some research just like you said. On that note though, I think you made some assumptions about what I said that were clearly wrong. I never gave my whole standpoint on what I said as it would take me all day and if I went through the trouble I'd probably go ahead and publish it just because of the effort involved. I know they have a different way of life. Obviously, I don't think anyone on this forum is so stupid as to not look at this entire situation from their eyes for a second.

I **** people off all the time in my unit because they say "why don't you hate them". Why?.....because that's retarded and ignorant (ethnocentric). If I had met them on different circumstances we may had been good friends. I would be making IEDs and shotting them if they came to America too. That still doesn't justify us not being there though. If they could stay in the Middle East and let us exsist on our own accord in different parts of the world we wouldn't be at war. We didn't go attack them until they attacked us. I know that sounds childish but had they respected our happy little universe we wouldn't have went postal.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

its NOT envy, it is to them a perceived threat against their way of life and their way of being.. again just like the luddites of yor

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

mind showing me where and when iraq attacked us...

1reguL8NSTi

As far as Luddism goes, yeah I can see how they might be upset. Again, that is why we are going about the war in Iraq wrong. I wouldn't want people in my country forcing me to do things I didn't want to do and bring foreign influences into my culture. That's pretty apparent.

1reguL8NSTi

They obviously never did. I see exactly where your going with this and if you refer to my previous post my point still stands. If we're not looking for WMDs in Iraq anymore lets starting pulling the masses out and take the nationalistic animosity out of the casualty factor. Let them live a day without seeing MPs riding through their neighborhoods on HMMVs with .50s on top. It must be the most oppressing thing and I can understand their malice.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

wasnt even taking it that far

just pointing out a error in generalization you had made i knew what you meant (islamic religious fanatics)..

And you cant find a war of ideas by physical means, that is only a step down the path of defeat.

To fight an idea you need to attack its roots in the psyche of those who support it, spread it, and are prone to view it as legitimate.

That will be the only way to win such a "war".

read up on NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) alot of that stuff directly relates to the topic of winning a war of "ideas"...

1reguL8NSTi

I'm not being a smart *** here at all but did you read my proposal on what I think should be done in Iraq. I think if you did (I'm almost sure) you'd agree. If you'd like I rewrite it just so we're on the same page.

P.S. communicating a point over the intronetweb sucks!!!

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

glanced over it dont have the time to read it all

i will get to it just wanted to bring up some valid points and point you in the direction of some reading that would intrest you