We started it to get rid of a terror leaning, weapons loving, fascist, america hating son of a bitch whom the president judged (rightly or wrongly) to be not worth taking a chance over on the safety of the american people.
We completed this phase in a few weeks, and then were left with a conquering force right sized, and a garrison force about 20-25% of what was required. We set loose the ancient war of Ali and 700 AD, versus the converted tribe of power in the hijaz of pre Muhammad times.
We succeeded in a few weeks.
We also failed to comprehend the ragnorokian forces of entropy coiled tighter every day since Ali and Husayn died/were treacherously killed.
That is the responsibility of the Bush admin.
Jim Baker has also FAILED to grasp the elementary.
If the members of the ISG:
James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, Alan K. Simpson are so naieve that they believe not only that Israel can make peace with HAMAS, but also that this will fix the problems in Najaf and Ramadi, and Sadr City, then The Wise Men of our day are fools.
Some of them should have learned this lesson of Israel being a distraction and canard - for their ignorance of that force which grew from the 1979 Russian invasion of Afghanistan onwards, while they guarded the realm.. had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the 'unbelievers' everywhere.
These people, who certainly know better, include every name on this list except for Mrs. O'Connor. They might have been able to claim ignorance the first time around, but the forces of salafist and khomeinist aggression are no strangers on the world stage now, and have little to do with Israel.
I have lost much respect for every single name on that list.
But of course we all know wordlessly, the reason for the ISG. It was to give cover to republicans and democrats for treacherously leaving Iraq, and giving up, and making it easier to garner votes in the short term of those in office (of both parties).
Bernard Lewis:"America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend."
If we want to "win" we need to pick a side. Sunni or Shia. Who has more 'right' on their side?
Will that be cod liver oil or milk of magnesia, sir?
Are you kidding me?
5 comments:
I still have every reason to believe that there would not have been as much trouble in Iraq had the Media and many U.S. politicians not been so much against the cause.. The sustained and subtantive undermining of the effort has had GREAT implications of handicapping moarale and destoying support ON EVERY FRONT ..
Had these same "Deserters of Freedom" applied their efforts to supporting and encouraging the Cause of Freedom and Democracy, then I'm most assured that the outcome would have been completely different.. IN A GOOD WAY !!
"Neutralizing" Iraq was not an OPTION, just as neutralizing Iran is soon not going to be an OPTION !!
Will we also see such undermining when Iran is the focus of our attention ?? Or has the WILL to undertake action against Iran now been completely and irreversably dissolved ??
Are we now doomed to just sit and wait for another attack on our cities and persons ?? IF isnt even a factor any longer, but only WHEN.. But will the next attack be of such severety and magnitude that it will completely cripple the ability to recover from it ??
How bad would an attack have to be to destroy the ability of our society to recover from ?? How fragile is our financial network and how fragile are our energy sources ?? Could the destruction of either one of these, on a major scale, cause unimaginable suffering ??
The Anti-War and Opposition Forces have us set-up in a vulnerable situation right now..
How well would you be prepared if you went to the grocery store and found looting and empty shelves tomoro ?? If ALL the gas pumps were marked "SOLD OUT" ?? If your Power Grid was disabled ??
Just think about that for a minute, and then remember that the Liberals and the Anti-War Crowd have put us in that position !! GOTDAM, I hate that bunch of sunzabitches !!
This is proving that the politicians believe that the only kind of war americans will end up supporting is one with no american casualties, in in which we win right away. That way they can get re-elected, which of course is the real objective.
There is a way to do that, you know.
Epa,
What kind of war could America fight which would have no casualties?
the answer is, a nuclear war against a country which has no nuclear weapons.
Wild Bill points out a crucial conundrum of this situation: most of the West will not wake up until the next 9/11, but the next 9/11 may leave us so damaged that we can't mount a decisive retaliation in time. There are plenty of scenarios showing how it could happen. Take a look at the one Walid Phares' presents in Future Jihad, in which the damage is all done by conventional means with nuclear weapons merely threatened. Or Raymond Kraft's piece at New Media Journal in which short-range nuclear missles take out key locations on both coasts.
After Pearl we had to scramble to recover. Could we mount that sort of mobilization today or would we collapse into warring factions focused on fixing blame while we struggle to survive?
Well, actually, there was a lot of blame-fixing, rumor-mongering and conspiracy theorizing going on after Pearl as well. But the country still dropped everything and put all of its resources into winning that war. Militarily, Pearl was a huge loss. But the rest of the country wasn't touched. It won't be that way next time and we won't have a choice about casualties because they will be happening HERE. It took the Islamists more than 3 years to kill as many Americans as they did on 9/11/2001 in less than 3 hours. A successful 9/11/2008 with nuclear devices could kill as many Americans as we lost in all of WWII in those same 3 hours.
Here is the scarry part tho.. Think about how many "enemy within" we have these days that are already here in the U.S. ready and willing to mount second and third attacks, and what will the criminal element on the streets be like if a major attack were to take place today ?? On 9-11 gas prices shot up $2 a gallon and fights broke out at the pumps here in my neck of the "sticks".. What is it gonna be like in the more populated areas of the country ?? Is it gonna be another New Orleans, on a coast-to-coast scale ?? It could very easily be !!
Criminal Gangs taking control of the Police functions and then having communication ability between Gangs in different cities, and Gangs have been known to have Islamic ties from contacts in prison, where a lot of new converts have been recruited..
And what about El Rojo Diablo ?? What would the illegal population do if they had a prime chance to create mass chaos in the U.S. after an attack ??
But even worse, what would the effect be on a MAJOR attack on the British or French or German population ?? They are already taxed to their limits.. Not to mention(but I will), an UNARMED population.. Except, of coarse, for the criminal element !!
Post a Comment