Shane Belanger wrote:Well I would just like to say very very well put. Obviously I should have done a smidge more research, ok... a lot hehe :-). Oh and have you read Saddams Secrets by Georges Sada? That is a very good read and takes the same position that I took in the above post ^^. I am glad that someone finally posted to my post and was backed up by facts. You were not mean in any sense of the word, you wrote a well informed, well written summary of your thoughts and opinions and backed them up with facts. I actually really enjoyed reading it to be honest with you! As I'm sure you can tell I am very far to the right, yes I know that this isn't always good and that sometime I can be blind to some things. I guess that I was just so fed up with everyone bashing him that I simply took the believe what I would like to stance. I do have a few emails that my cousin an army blackhawk pilot sent me, i'll post them below. Did you watch any of the vids that i attached? Those are very good! Yes I do know that these emails are old and that the numbers in the second email should be different today. I am not sure when it was written but I am pretty sure that it was back in 04 or 05. Thanks for posting and I will make sure to make a better post about this in a few days when I am not so busy, I'll try to write a comprehensive essay taking no sides and backing everything up with facts(if i can do that)... it's going to be like ap us history all over again! haha, look forward to reading it! I'm just curious but what is your education level, like where did you go to college? That was well written and you made your point clear and concise. (not dissin, if anything praising here)
Thanks, First and foremost for not flipping out for having a different point of view than I do. I realize most have different views, and that's fine. My only major problem is when people who express those views do so with little tangible or verifiable knowledge on their part. Just picking a side without really knowing what they stand for is... hazardous, at best hazardous. I also tend to chafe at people that are rabidly anti-Bush without really knowing why too... They're on my side of the issue (I'm not a Fan of Dubya, if you read back in other posts I tend to call him Gilligan... I think it's fitting
) but if they don't inform themselves, they're really not going to be equipped to deal with the fall-out of their decisions. I can deal with supporters of the Iraq war, because there has been some good come out of it (much to my dismay, its really a testament to what the troops can accomplish without a lot of support on their own), my problem is that there is so much more to do, and the realistic approach to doing it (ie. Nation building, something that's been done with great success over the last 60 years, but has fallen out of fashion with the current administration) was shunned for a more seemingly pragmatic approach that would not only save time but money, and really didn't accomplish those goals. The other thing was that the Shock and Awe campaign had 2 major ramifications: The effect of projection of power on foreign lands, and the effect on the American People.
I didn't get a chance to watch the vids you linked, but I will make a point of watching them.
As for my education, I'm a Computer Engineer (Algonquin College in Ottawa), and currently am working at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a Forensic Identification Tech. Most of my work is visual and requires sustained concentration, so I listen to audio books almost constantly. I listen to (I call it reading, however when I do it, my eyes are busy at the time
) a lot of fiction, but when I read non-fiction, it's usually about Iraq, and it's on both sides of the issue.... Except for blowhards like Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh... They're so misleading and rabid (pointedly used... they don't articulate their thoughts or use diverse information catalogues to prove their point, and in some cases use uncorroborated statements from each other which makes for a weak argument)... I'll admit I listen to Al Franken's books because they're entertaining, and actually make points worth listening to and thinking about, the other nice thing is that he actually uses real evidence to back up most of his points (in the case of calling Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot... I've listened to his schtik about Michael J Fox, and it pretty much speaks for itself).
Either way:
**EMAIL ONE!**
This serious.
Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation.
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)I've read this before, it was posted as I remember...
Either way...
Quote:
Subject: Muslims, terrorists and the USA...A different spin on Iraq war.
This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
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.
I'll get into this in a bit... But he does raise a good point right off the bat.
Quote:
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 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 U SS 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).
I think he's coming at it from the point of view that Americans were attacked first, when really it's a little more complicated.
If you figure the US/Britain-backed Shah of Iran being deposed by political uprising and then re-instated in 1953... All over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company... The US didn't strike first, but it didn't help a nationalist party. The let-down is as good as a slap in the face, especially when you consider that the Shah was pro-US, Pro-Israel, and wanted to westernize the country in the face of the Shi'a clerics that opposed.
There's going to be more about this, promise.
Quote:
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.
True, if you look at it from the individual bombers' perspectives... however, the reason for the attacks are pretty simple, it's not them envying us: its the Al-qaeda leadership looking to feather their own nests. Some people may not have noticed in the initial aftermath of 9/11: The NYSE had closed, but, London, Toronto/Montreal, Hong Kong, Frankfurt, and Madrid Stock Exchanges and commodity markets (ie, ones that trade heavily in US/UK/Canada based companies and goods/futures) were all hit by a slough of "put options." These are usually placed by companies as a way to secure themselves as a creditor should any thing negative happen to the company, so that the buyer of the option gets first cut of any cash by agreeing to sell at an arranged price.
Al-qaeda made, quite literally BILLIONS of dollars. Their average operation cost is under $1 million US. They are either setting themselves up as economic terrorists (trust me, it can happen: Look at Michael Milken, or Bre-X at the end of the company) or are planning a LOT more operations. I'd think the former rather than the latter is more likely... and it's going to play out in Afghanistan (Narco-state supreme) and Pakistan (grass-roots populace support and an oppressive regime).
Quote:
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
True. They were also predominantly Saudi and Middle class in the case of 9/11, Iranian University students in the case of the Embassy attack in 1982, more University students in the case of Beiruit, committed mujahadeenis in the case of the rest, but they started out as University students more or less otherwise. Personally, I think the fact that they are Muslim is incidental, the fact that they almost universally come from an impoverished area (Saudi Arabia's median income is less than $12,000 USD, they pay over $4 a litre for water, and thats when you can actually get it), and they are taught that the reason they are impoverished is because of the "great Satan," well, there is some truth in that, but it's more a cultural thing than anything. The Saudi Royal family has grown by leaps and bounds and now there are some Princes that receive stipends of over $1 million USD a month because of oil revenues. Previous to the ballooning of the royal family, those stipends were distributed to the people, and let the average Saudi in the 60's to have an income of over $30,000 USD (in 1969 dollars, they were rolling in it), but as the royal family grew, those stipends were clawed back.
The problem is not so much the Religion of Islam, it's the Culture of Royal entitlement.
Quote:
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
About right, I seem to remember it being about 14%, but that's assuming you count India's Billion people as mostly Hindu/Buddhist.
Quote:
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 (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://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?
Again, this is what I was getting at: The religion or political bent itself isn't the prime culprit, it's Greed. It's easier to focus on the religion because people like to pigeon-hole themselves: most people don't want to believe that their leaders are just as greedy and money/power hungry as they are themselves or their professed enemies are. Not pointing fingers here, but it's a lot harder to get greed out of the breed than it is religion or politics.
It's part of the reason I wish decisions were made with bar rules:
- No Politics,
- No Religion,
- If you leave your bar seat and part-empty beer, you lost your seat.
eh... it sounded better with a pint of Guinness in hand.
Quote:
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.
Again, the Muslim part is incidental. There are extreme right-wing Christians, Aetheists (remember the Bolsheviks?), Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians, Librarians... you name it. There's a ton of people with an axe to grind, a lot of spare cash and guns.
Quote:
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.
1: Of course. If you commit to attacking someone, you can lose.
2: In a minute
Quote:
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 terrorist 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.
Depends on what you're talking about, and you also have to remember that he's got to tread very, VERY lightly here. These attacks are not steadily increasing, but they're more opportunistic in reality. You leave your guard down (as in 9/11, there are several instances of related proof that there was going to be little if any possibility of a counter offensive after the first aircraft struck the towers.. This opening was also fairly well known inside military and aviation circles), you're going to get popped if you don't know your opponent and aren't fast enough to do anything about it.
Quote:
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!
France is NOT IN IRAQ. They've been in Afghanistan, however... and they're not willing to move from the south of Afghanistan (much to Canadians' chagrin). Spain backed off because their involvement was utterly peripheral. Malta actually had equal force in Iraq at the time. Spain had little interest in the area, and Al-Qaeda had leveraged Basque separatists to do what they had already been planning to do. You lost an ally, but you didn't lose much in the offing.
Quote:
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?
At this point, George W. Bush is as responsible for killing the US's economy as anyone in the rest of the world is. Allowing and encouraging the following:
- Substandard goods from mass-production nations with shaky quality control (China, India)
- Exporting jobs to Nations with far lower pay
- Importation of goods at higher than market prices
- Lowering taxation in disproportionate amounts for income strata.. in a time of war.
- Committing more funds to a war-effort that has no viable outcome....
is doing more to sink your economy than anything. I'll give you an outside-looking-in perspective: Canada has committed troops to Afghanistan through 2009, we are in the same fight (just not in Iraq, it's complicated), but we're not doing anything significantly differently from what we were doing before the invasion, yet our dollar which was significantly depressed compared to the USD is now nearly at parity, and forecast to exceed the USD within 5 years.
Within 8 years, our dollar has gone from being worth less than 60cents against the USD, to almost 94 cents. Why is that? We haven't begun exploiting our oil reserves, we're still taxed oppressively (although that's supposed to change), we still have to pay about 20% more for consumer goods, cars, and homes.
If we're not doing anything differently (and neither is most of the rest of the western hemisphere, then it's probably your Executive that's pushing things down.
Quote:
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.
Making it a religious war is not a good idea... it's not about religion, and making it so will be the first mistake in a long line of losing mistakes. Islam is not the enemy, lust for money and power (on both sides of the equation) is.
Quote:
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.
Win what? International pissing contest? Really... Again, outside-looking-in: Canada is at the bottom of the G8... and we have a pretty damned good standard of living (equal to the US), and most of the rest of the remaining 7 have an equally good standard of living. Being cream of the crop is one thing, but look at it like this: The US GDP is $10 TRILLION. Afghanistan's Narcotics based economy isn't hitting 10 Billion. When they manage to hit 1000 times their current average (legally), they'll be in contention.
Quote:
So, how can we lose the war?
Ahh.. the 64 thousand dollar question.
Quote:
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!
This is where things get dicey. The author sounds like they're assuming all muslims are in on the ploy. I don't think that's entirely plausible.
Quote:
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.
Here's where the argument breaks down, for me at least. Suspension of Rights is very simply the wrong way to beat an enemy. Let's entirely forget that you're fighting a noun.
In WWII, hundreds of thousands of Japanese-descented Americans and Canadians (many with little or no ties to Japan), were put in virtual prison-camp situations, all for naught. You basically saw a whole group of people treated like Germans treated Jews... all to stop them from doing something that didn't happen, and wouldn't have.
One of the great things about the recorded history is that you can learn from it. The USA had to pay reparations to the people that were displaced... The State department apologized officially to the people who were treated as suspects when all they were was loyal Americans, most born there... Canada had the same kind of reparations. I'd like to hope that we've grown away from this kind of petulant and myopic policy. Colour of skin, Creed, Religion, Faith, Income bracket, Sex and Age are not useful descriminators, and profiling on the basis of those alone is not legal. What you do to the least of the people in your country says more about the state of your country than anything. You don't win a war of conscience by giving up what defines you. For proof: look at the US Civil war. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, and what happened: widespread abuses in contested territories until it was returned in 1865, even though the supreme court deemed the action illegal.
What is gained from the suspension of essential rights? What alters those rights during a time of war? Nothing is the answer, at least in my mind.
Quote:
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.
True, but there was a definite end to hostilities in WWII, after Germany and Japan capitulated, you saw the return of the civil rights that were suspended and reparation since then. Only once since the Civil war and before 2001/09/11 have your rights been infringed upon: in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing. And even then, it was only for the individuals accused of conspiring to commit the bombing. That was not to infringe on the rights of the individual accused, that was to ensure the states effectively prosecuted individuals responsible for acts of terrorism.
What's happened since... its unprecedented. It's actually eerily similar to the Communist purges after the Bolshevik revolution.
Quote:
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.
Lawful? Honourable? Clean? No... War is hell, no matter how you slice it. The difference between winning the war with honour, Fighting for who you are, is not giving up what defines you. Americans have had basic rights that were considered unthinkable... and you've had them for ages. Now you just want to trash it until you're out of a supposed forest?
Codswallop.
You fight for rights and freedoms of others, you don't abandon them at home, that's called hypocrisy or at best hollow victory.
Quote:
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.
Losing? Don't let a tick in the "L" column define the conflict.
The author is making it seem as though the right decision was to go into Iraq in the first place. It's not... it was a bad idea to go in, that's plainly evident. More on that at the end of the post though...
Quote:
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.
I seem to remember that the same thing was said in 1943. The problem is, it was in German.
The other thing: why hand your enemies Martyrs?
Quote:
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 of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And that justifies visiting the same kinds of horrors on them? Seriously?
Quote:
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.
There's a difference, and I suspect the author is getting things muddled: There's more than just Al-qaeda in Iraq.. There's:
- Al-qaeda
- Fedayeen Hussein (former ultra elite Republican Guard, guerilla warfare)
- Shi'a Terrorists
- Sunni Terrorists
- Kurdish Resistance.
It's a real fuc
king mess... to quote a friend that was training Iraqi police in Jordan.
Quote:
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?
Definitely. It's defilement of ones' self, and ones' body.
You expect your own people to be treated humanely, as in what you want those POW's to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Why on earth would you not do that and lead by example? You want the cause to be riteous? Follow the riteous path. You know why Machiavelli is a lesson to be learned? He found out that the ends don't always justify the means.
Quote:
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.
Pardon me? I fully comprehend the nature of the beast, and the genie that got let out of the bottle in Iraq could have very well been contained, had proper planning and troop commitment been followed on.
Again, this letter was written well, well before the full extent of the debacle was realized. The Defence department had attempted to formulate a plan that would bring reasonable security for the border and interior of the country... now, we know that Rumsfeld and Cheney had attempted for over 5 months prior to invasion to lessen and lessen the troop commitment for Iraq. I'm going to point again to Tony Zinni's book Battle Ready, where he said that Rumsfeld had tried numerous times to get CentCom to ratchet down the numbers to fit what Rumsfeld wanted (if you can believe it: it was 18,000 troops... The words "they oughtta be prepared to fight as hard on the way out as they did on the way in" were used to describe the process of battle.. the hit and hold idea wasn't even on the table).
Quote:
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.
Actually, to bring it to a stand-still would have been the better thing: it would have halted Presidential prerogative on tax relief that didn't need to be passed.
Quote:
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.
Hrmm... not really... it also includes all those that don't agree with their take on Islam.
By this same logic, all Presbyterians are planning to take over the world.
Quote:
We are the last bastion of defense.
Not really, there's more than just the USA on watch... more in a second though
Quote:
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!
Winning hearts and minds means that you have to follow your own rhetoric. Being "arrogant" means that you think that you're the only ones that can do it, and if you won't no one else will... If the author would drop the self-flagellation, he'd realize that there's a lot of countries that are in this too... but the rest of us want to see us all do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons at the right time. Iraq was the right idea, but the follow through has been seriously, painfully lacking. The reason Iraq is still a failed state is that the borders are still swiss cheese, the military is not up to standing on its own 2 feet, and the police force is in worse shape, and internal problems with all those different groups... well... anyhow, the troop surge helped, but you need to sustain that and actually double the presence.
Quote:
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.
This is where arrogance comes in. There are a LOT more people that are invested in this problem than just the USA. Thinking so isn't just arrogant, it's asinine, self-aggrandizing and self-defeating. I show 10yr old kids that you have to work together to get a tough problem solved.
Quote:
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.
Rome fell because Caesar Augustus abandoned the principles he swore to uphold. Abandoning your essential and inalienable rights and freedoms is basically the same thing.
Quote:
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?
I'd like to know where he got the crystal ball.
Quote:
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 some, give it over willingly for the illusion of security.
Quote:
And they are giving those freedoms away to! those w ho 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"?
No, because assuming that all muslims are domineering and power hungry murderers is prejudicial, and again, myopic. That means that ALL whites are corrupt thieves, all blacks are drugged out thieves, and ALL Latinos are greasy thugs.
It doesn't shake out.
Quote:
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.
Waking up from a bad dream... aye there's the rub. Iraq is a quagmire, and all that Americans need to do is not cut and run, not blindly follow what the Executive says, but... Think about what you stand for, and communicate that to your elected officials now, and use your vote and rally support for others that support what you want.
My thoughts are at the bottom of the book... err... page.
Quote:
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 include 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 that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
I've said this before, I'll keep saying it until it's understood and accepted.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ONLY THE GOOD WITHOUT THE BAD.
You have to acknowledge both, the good with adulation, and bad with concern. Fix the bad, make the good better... Move toward the positive.
Quote:
Do you know?
I didn't know!
How could we?
Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?
True, and of those 47, 43 no longer have their embassy open, but merely a consular office, and all in the same 4-5 block radius in the Green Zone.
Quote:
Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Yep, did you also know that the reconstruction effort employs less than 20% Iraqis, to this day?
Quote:
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,
Didn't know that, but I wonder which are teaching Shariya under the strict Shi'a definition?
Quote:
364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
So, roughly... 2900 kids per school? If you use
CIA's Factbook on Iraq?
Quote:
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?
Operating at what levels though? If you have 15 people in a research centre that should have 400, do you call it operational?
Quote:
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005
for the re-established Fulbright program?
Interesting. Hope it works out for them.
Quote:
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?
They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
Didn't know about the navy, but right now, it needs support from other Nations in support of the UN Mandate that's still ongoing.
Quote:
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Yes, and yes. The other thing is that the police and CT units are not ready to perform their duties... almost 4 years after the state dept started training recruits. This is part of the reason that the Jordan mission is still happening. More on this...
Quote:
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
He doesn't say this, but these are NOT full police officers, they're auxiliary. From there, there's a recruitment of full-time patrolmen, officers, and commanders. With the fall out of L. Paul Bremmer banning all Ba'ath party members from serving in any police or military service, they're absurdly short-handed on qualified troops.
I know this because there was a possibility for RCMP Officers, Regular Members, and Civilian Members to go to Jordan and help train recruits and conduct investigations in support of the Iraqi Police. I'm not senior enough to do this, but if I had the option, I'd likely do it.
Quote:
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Yes, I had heard of this, but the thing that troubles me greatly, is that the majority of those doing the work on these projects are Americans... using resources and facilities from outside Iraq. In some cases, this is understandable... but... There are 3 major concrete plants, 2 steel mills and sulphur plants that aren't operating. Major employers shuttered. Does this make sense?
Quote:
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Good start, no doubt... Getting them the rest of their vaccination series, and then making sure they get fed regularly... that's the next step. You can feed a hungry kid ideology.
Quote:
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
No, and I hope they're not going to Shariya schools, one good thing about Iraq is that other than the Saddam curriculum, it managed to stay remarkably simple and secular.
Quote:
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
Is this how you measure democracy?
Quote:
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Now if only the US was so diverse!
(Sorry, had to say it)
Quote:
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Yes, but what's more interesting is that they really don't trade grains, and their oil commodity exchange isn't in Dinars, it's in Euros.
Quote:
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?
Yes, and it was well conducted, thoughtful, passionate, and more candid than anything you'll see in the US. It had serious grit, while it wasn't as slick or polished as western elections, it was at least real. I'm not going to lie, it would be REALLY useful for the Iraqi parliament to actually pass and ratify a constitution.
Quote:
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of reflecting our love for our country,
we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib
and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
1: the "Media" (which is a Nixonian cop-out... Mass media helps get Presidents elected and impeached, it's not the villain) has no shortage of bad stuff to sell you. You need to change your viewing habits.
2: Gilligan ought count himself lucky it isn't grenades, or worse: ribbons from service medals.
Quote:
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
Codswallop.
CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS.. all major news carriers are SELLING you news. Don't piss up their rope for selling you what you want to watch. There's an old slogan in the News business: "If it bleeds, it leads." Don't blame a free press.
As far as undermining populace support, if you remember, there wasn't quite 50% support for the war in the beginning... there's even less now because of major @!#$ ups like Abu Ghraib, soldiers raping and murdering civilians, unending insurgent/terrorist attacks... This isn't the fault of the media... it's the fault of the Executive branch for not having a coherent plan for the occupation of Iraq after the Hussein regime was toppled. Hold the architects of the failure to secure the country responsible for their part. For what the troops are doing, they're truly qualified to anything with nothing (its a joke now, sadly).
Quote:
---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
.......Pass it on! Give it a Wide Dissemination!
The DOD website doesn't have stances on the discouragement of American citizens methinks.
At this point, it's my thought that the decision to go into Iraq is moot. You're in, you're fully engaged, you're not going to get out easily or quickly, even if you pull up stakes.
So: Finish the job you started. Make your zeal and your intentions worth the effort and the cost. Soldiers are paying for this action in blood, sweat and tears... your future is mortgaged almost indefinitely on this war... Make the cost worth it. Stand up for your convictions. Anything less is an insult to the war dead, and a blight on the face of every American.
(Sorry for the book)
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
-Chris
