If we run away today, where will we stand and fight tomorrow? Running away will not end the war with al-Qaeda., nor will end the battles in Iraq. The enemy will only see it as a victory for them and a defeat for us. When we left Somalia, the enemy saw that as a victory, they have said so. They have admitted that they cannot defeat the U.S. militarily, so they are waging a war to demoralize the U.S. population. So, for all of you who are desperate to leave Iraq today, where are you willing to stand and fight tomorrow because they are still coming after you. The answer cannot be "when they attack me and my family" because they have already done that in attacking "our" larger American family. This is not so much a political issue as much as a survival issue. These are not rational people we are fighting. They do not reason to a settlement, they will be victorious or die trying. This is not about bad foreign policy or "stealing resources", these are fanatics who think they should be ruling the world their way or as much of it as they can. So if you run today where will you stand and fight tomorrow? They will continue to come until victorious or death. So my question is, if not Iraq today, where tomorrow?"
|
|
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
He was absolutely correct and today the terrorist work with their media allies to amplify the death of every American and every Iraqi so that we will tire of it first.
After the U.S. left Vietnam, tens of thousands of its citizens were set adrift on the seas in tiny boats to be raped and murdered by South Sea pirates. In Cambodia, millions were slain for crimes as small as wearing glasses. All the moralists who howled about the viciousness of America suddenly became deaf, dumb and blind to terror.
As Vietnam wound down, Middle Eastern Terrorists began attacking London, Rome, Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt, Amersterdam, Athens, Madrid and Istanbul. No effort was made to move against them or to move against the countries who sponsored them.......until the terrorists were so emboldened that they attacked New York.
BTW, what do you care what the enemy declares about anything? If they were pummled back to the pre-stone age, they'd call it a victory! Fact and history are massaged to assuage the egos of the teller. Since it's such a huge loss of face to admit defeat, they never will, no matter what. I suggest you stop caring what they think or say about us.
It has been known for years that Osama is in the tribal regions of Pakistan.
Iraq has always been the center of world terror. Not only did U.S. troops capture Abu Abbass in Baghdad. a terrorist who had murdered Americans, but they narrowly missed capturing Abu Nidal who died weeks before we got there.
Saddam offered money, sanctuary, and semi-annual terrorist conferences......which Al Qaeda's #2 man attended on the personal invite of Saddam.
After our invasion; Libya, Syria, Jordan and Algeria all changed their policy on sponsoring terror.
The CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and his recruits
to fight the communist government of Afghanistan
and the Russians. The CIA trained Osama & company
using gorilla warfare.
1.2 billion Moslems in the world, none will
hand over Osama Bin Laden because we invaded
Iraq.
A commonly held misperception. Read The Looming Tower. Osama was at best a bit player in Afghanistan and was held in contempt by the Muhjadeen.
He was not trained by anybody. It was his lack of training and lack of common military sense that made his cohort look like the Keystone Kops. Even his only battle with the Communist Afghan Army at Tora Bora resulted in his gang running into the hills and abandoning their equipment.
His primary value came in raising funds from rich Saudi's.
Which explains why the Taliban failed to hand him over before we invaded anybody?
I like your reference to the Vietnamese boat people. There was and is a deafening silence on that subject by both sides of the Vietnam issue. I work with several "boat people" and they have stories about what it was like after the U.S. left Vietnam, they have stories.
I wonder if Middle Easterners would want to support that publicly, or if they'd just join in to kill all of us. If they saw that we were there to stay forever, would it change their minds about us?
I like your reference to Tito and Yugoslavia, interesting. And the "world" is welcome to come to the table anytime they want. They had an opportunity a couple of years ago and passed on it if you recall.
Also It's not that I care what they say but you have to listen to them. They are telling us exactly what they intend to do and to some extent it may be working, more to think about.
Thanks,
I don't like the fact that so many people are willing to run away from Iraq. It was war when it started and the majority of Americans supported it. Now it's more difficult, but the goal should be the same. Helping to establish a stable government that could at least defend themselves, and in which the Iraqi people have a say.
That will make us more safe because if we fight them in Iraq, we will drain their resources, kill their people, and leave them demoralized. That is the only way to victory, because God knows that we have no real defense if they decide to come over here, what with how some people in this country tie the government's hands in protecting us at home (wiretaping, tribunals, etc.).
William Jefferson Clinton opened the door to the terrorists by weakening immigration controls and George Walker Bush made the most of that mistake. Yes, I'm thinking of 9/11, the most improbable terrorist attack ever. There are so many questions to answer that I still don't buy it.
Discourse is so much more difficult when one has to explain EVERYTHING. Can't you infer something once in a while? What I was implying - ((sigh)) - is that the terrorists were in Afghanistan (very close to Pakistan) and staying there would have done us some good in the War on Terrorism. Now, we have to go back and liberate it again because the Taliban has reorganized. We didn't stamp them out and now they're back.
Joe, I figure the terrorists will follow us anywhere we are. I'm keenly aware of the threat they pose and totally believe they mean what they say. They want to kill us, convert us to their radical form of Islam or make us live subservient lives under Sharia Law. I want none of those outcomes as I'm sure you don't. Where we differ is that I'd like us to EFFECTIVELY address the terrorist threat...but what I think we're doing, instead, is creating more of them.
Yes, Iraq will be a mess - with us or without us. Yes, there's a threat that Iran - or its' satellite terrorists - will take over if we leave. Yes, many innocents will probably die - much like they are now - before order can be restored.
Before we started this war with Rumsfelds old buddy, the life of the average Iraqi was much more stable and peaceful. I know Saddam tortured and killed many people but if you look at archival footage of Iraq before our invasion, it was a working society. (Think Mussolini who wasn't a good guy but made the trains run on time.) Now, their society is in chaos and we're stuck! I think it's time to rein in our egotistical pride and work from a distance.
If we succeed, we will benefit and the Iraqis will benefit. Now the Iraqi people i'm sure were ecstatic to have Saddam off their backs, and to actually have a fair election. I can understand their anger and frustration at the way that the country is going now, but that is the deliberate and purposeful goal of the terrorists. I hope that the Iraqis see that. And if they don't support the U.S. in defeating those people, that same government that they were so jubilant about will fall. They will find themselves in a much worse situation than they see now. There won't even be a civil war, there will just be oppression, just like ther was before in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really is in both of our interests for the U.S. to succeed.
Thanks,
Since the Gulf War, it became the center of terrorism. Saddam found himself on the wrong side of the governments of his neighbors, so he did an end around them by appealing to their radicals by building upon the enterprise of terror. Yes: Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and Iran sponsored terror of some sort of another.....but they were peripheral and legacy. Saddam began holding semi-annual terrorist conferences and began financing suicide bombers by paying their families $25,000 a head. He also invited terrorist groups like the Abu Nidal organization and Abu Abbass to Baghdad.
Anything but.....
Muqtada al-Sadr commanded a fully armed militia of 35,000 during the time of Saddam. One needs to ask why a Shia militia was needed in a time of peace? The reality is that the sectarian violence went on DURING Saddam's regime and Saddam simply sat above the violence not taking sides.
In short he did not have to worry about Al-Jeezer, the NYT, CBS, and CNN reporting on every body, murder and truck-bomb in the market place during his regime.
Anything but. The chaos that is Iraq was caused in large part by 25 years of infra-structure deterioration. The only thing that was built were over two dozen palaces for Saddam..
palaces where visiting anti-war activists spent the night.