A kerry presidency = increased terrorist violence.

[johnb]

So, Vladimir Putin acknowledges reality, that if Bush looses there will be an upsurge in terrorist violence because the US would have pulled a Spain.

An Iraqi blogger hits the nail on the head as well.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html

THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS
Hi Friends,

Actually, the American elections are rather more crucial for us at the moment than our own . That is not to belittle the importance of the latter, but taking a really hard look at the present situation, one cannot escape this conclusion. This statement may annoy a lot of people, but we are not particularly concerned about sensitivities at the moment. The thing is that we have to admit that despite the fact that most emphatically, the majority of the Iraqi people are for the new Iraq, and that the “insurrectionists” do not represent but a small minority, nevertheless the balance of forces on the ground would be seriously upset were it not for the support of the American and allied forces and nations. This small minority is dangerous, desperate, ruthless and absolutely prepared to commit any kind of atrocity to further their aims and vent their spleen, as has been clearly demonstrated almost everyday. They are well financed and connected with parties and interests beyond the border who consider it a matter of life and death to thwart all U.S. efforts and abort this attempt at creating a democratic state in the area. There are even larger international forces at work behind the regional players. So with all these foes it cannot be expected that the fledgling new Iraqi state and the largely peaceful and unarmed people can withstand the assault on their own in the present stage of development. It is a foregone conclusion that any abandonment or retreat would result in the most catastrophic consequences both for the Iraqi people as well as within the context of the wider global war on terrorism. Having said that, it is also important, to ease the burden on the Multi National Forces and keep them as much as possible out of harms way and stop the losses altogether. This can be done by transferring as much of the routine tasks to the Iraqis while keeping the MNF in secure bases from which they can be deployed for strategic tasks. For us, they are a most valuable asset and must be shielded and used only with the utmost care and parsimony. I believe it is possible to devise such a strategy and that it can be implemented.

Now, do we have a right, as Iraqis to express our opinion about the U.S. elections, which are of course an entirely internal affair for the American people? Or are they?
It seems to me, that since this matter is going to have a direct impact on our lives and very existence and since the U.S. government and people have seen fit to intervene and initiate this profound revolution in our country; it would not be extravagant nor incorrect for us even to demand to take part in those elections, rhetorically speaking of course.

So, I have been, personally very attentive to the debates and positions of both candidates, and I have some thoughts which I would like to share with you, my American friends. To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him. Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.

On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance. If you lose this war, you are no more, and you will have to withdraw within you boundaries cringing and waiting for terror to strike you in your homeland, afraid to move around, afraid to travel, afraid to do business abroad. You will have to see all your friends abroad annihilated and intimidated and nobody will have any confidence or trust in you anymore. And you will have to watch from far with bitterness the forces of darkness and evil taking over in many parts of this earth, with feelings of impotence and inability to do anything about it. In other words you would lose all credibility, and the fiends of terror and obscurantism would go triumphantly dancing the macabre dance of mayhem and death, and darkness would descend and obliterate the light and the hope. You think I am exaggerating, you think I am being paranoid? I just pray that destiny would not prove all these things; I pray that these horrors will not come to pass. And all this for what? For failing to confront few thousands ex-baathists and demented religious fanatics and some common criminals, concentrated in some rural areas of a country of the size of just one of your states; and that for a nation that has defeated Natzism, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Empire!

Well if Senator Kerry is such a good man, and he may well be, then it would be prudent to wait just another four years to elect him, after the job is done. And if this is interference in your national affairs by a foreigner, I am not going to give you any apology for it.

Salaam

# posted by Alaa : 3:42 PM

[SteveG]

This is such baloney.

Many people support Kerry because they believe he would do a *better* job of hunting down and killing or otherwise stopping those terrorists who actually threaten the US, rather than overcommiting US resources chasing less important agendas without a fair share of assistance from the rest of the world.

The Bush camp has created the impression in the Muslim world that the war is "Bush versus Islam." Kerry supporters counter that Kerry's approach would send a clear picture that the real war is "The World Versus Terrorism".

And Kerry has plainly stated that his intentions are to increase foreign assistance in dealing with Iraq, not pull out and abandon it. He won't pull a Spain, or a Nader, or a Badnarik.

Are we really expecting Americans to allow Iraqis to tell them to whom to vote for? Or Russians? Ha!

[johnb]

This is such baloney.

You can tell yourself that all day long and every day til election day but that doesn't make it true.

Bush did something Clinton would not: he fought back. Clinton did nothing when the USS Cole was attacked. We treated WTC1 as a "law enforcement" exercise, which it was not. We treated the bombings of the US embassies in east Africa as a "law enforcement" excercise, which that was not. We did nothing. It goes back further. We did nothing when the CIA station chief was murdered in Beirut. We did nothing when the US ambassador to the Sudan was murdered in the 70's. We did nothing when the Iranians kidnapped our embassy staff in 79. We fled Somalia and Lebanon after confronting terrorists there. There were GOP and Donkeycrat practitioners of this "art" of fleeing before Islamofascist terrorists. Each time they "win" the publicity war in front of their people they are emboldened to take greater and greater steps against the west.
The only language these people understand is the one spoken to them when there is a boot on their throat and a gun pointed at their heads.

They know damned well Bush will have them hunted down and killed. Nothing angers and scares a Muslim quite like a Kuffar, an infidel, with the power and will to defend himself or herself from the Jihadii AllStars. Their religion tells them that that the natural order is that you and I are supposed to be weaker than them and afraid of them. When we stand up to fight and we successfully defend ourselves that enrages them.

Yes they do want to see Kerry elected, they, like most sober people, understand quite well that Kerry's nuance is merely a code word for "Peace in our time", ie, surrender at any cost.

Kerry likened terrorism to prostitution and gambling. Victimless crimes. The Islamofascists are not crimminals, they are warriors for a stateless ideology. They have a malevolent and oppressive ideology they seek to impose on us by actively engaging in acts designed to harm and terrorize their victims, such as the ritual beheading of hostages. Kerry is so wrong he's clearly defined himself as incapable of handling the challenges of the next four years.

The "peace" activists/America haters are for Kerry because they know he will pull out of Iraq regardless of the situation and he won't us US force to protect American interests overseas the way Bush will. Dean's voters are in Kerry's camp for that reason. They may be dim and self-hating, but they aren't incapable of picking up the obvious. Kerry voted against almost every single big ticket military weapon system to go before the Senate in his 20 year tenure. He voted against the first Gulf War and that had a UN mandate and a huge coalition. His politically motivated flip flops and his appalling Senate record on defense make it clear he would NOT lead a "better" war on terrorism. He doesn't see a war, he sees "nuances" in a law enforcement operation. Running away and hiding will not moderate Islamofascism.

Get over it Steve. Bush's course has taken the battlefield away from NYC and put it in Iraq. Let the non-Iraqi Arabs flood into Fallujah to join the fight. They'll be good fertilizer after the soldiers of the 501st Infantry and the Marines of the (I believe) 2nd MEU crack Fallujah and slaughter them.

In modern war you cannot win by remaining on the defensive trying to block blows that have already been launched. You win by going to the bad guys neighborhood and breaking up and destroying his ability to strike. We are doing that now. Kerry has neither the stomach nor the inclination to do that. It requires, as the saying goes, rough men ready to use force to keep you safe.

[Wuptdo]

Johnb & Steve - take a moment and enjoy an old favorite from the "Man in Black!"

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/When_The_Man_Comes_Around.html


This one is not to music, but almost as powerful (NC-17):

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/002445.php

Wuptdo B-)

[SteveG]

Saddam/Iraq didn't attack the Cole. Saddam/Iraq didn't attack the World Trade Center. The man who did is still at large, and those members of his organization who have been killed or captured have been replaced in greater numbers, attracted by the Islamofascist propaganda that Bush has declared war on Muslims.

Iraq was impotent, limping along under economic sanctions. The US could easily have waited to build international support, including economic and troop support, before starting its regime change experiment. But Bush didn't want to wait, and as Kerry says, he took his eye off the ball.

I believe that Kerry would not have compromised the pursuit of and defense against Al Qaeda to go settle an old score for his dad. But you can believe what you want to believe.

[johnb]

I believe that Kerry would not have compromised the pursuit of and defense against Al Qaeda to go settle an old score for his dad.

You are wrong on both counts.

1-This was not about settling a score. Hate to tell you this Steve but a plane did crash into the Pentagon, the Jews were not behind 9/11, oil prices are not going to be less than $30 a barrel before election day, we did not have Osama surrounded in Tora Bora, and US forces have not captured Osama with the intent of announcing it a coujple of days before the election, did I miss any other kook conspiracy theories the left has latched onto of late?

2-Nothing has been compromised. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. In the contest between the standard Kerry talking point you parrot and the statements of the US military commanders I trust them. Al Qaeda has had it's leadership decimated. Osama is probably dead in a cave in the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan. Megalomaniacs such as bin Ladin crave the camera and attention. He's been silent for almost 2 years now. Regardless, he is functionally incapacitated as far as being able to plan, coordinate, and direct terror strikes against anyone other than the women and sheep he may rape.

It always amazes me how leftists claim to be so concerned about human rights, yet when the mass graves are found and the bodies exhumed that supposed concern seems to evaporate.

Iraq was and is not a distraction from the war on terror. It was an integral component of the creation and dissemination of international terrorism. Your position is politically motivated and cannot be confused with a sober assesment of the military situation. It's unfortunate to see the depths the left will go to undermine the President, the military, and the war effort in an attempt to regain power.

[johnb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?oref=login

retired General Tommy Franks, in an op ed piece to the NY Times writes the following:

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we “outsourced” the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry’s contention that we “had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden” and that “we had him surrounded.” We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not “outsource” military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never “took his eye off the ball” when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.


As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

[SteveG]

I do not believe in silly conspiracy theories. But I do believe that the cost/benefit ratio of the Iraq operation was far too low fpr the US, compared to how those resources could have been used to address more credible threats. I believed that before the operation began, and I believe it more strongly now. I hold the Bush administration responsible for the high cost, low benefit to the US, and lack of global assistance in Iraq, which is why I cannot vote to reelect George Bush. But like both Bush and Kerry, I don't think we can pull out of Iraq now; I think we need to work with the Iraqis and the rest of the world to clean up the mess that's there and give them the best possible chance of the Democracy that Bush promised them, however unlikely this is to survive.

[Mark]

Nothing has been compromised. You simply have no idea what you are talking about...Al Qaeda has had it's leadership decimated...he is functionally incapacitated as far as being able to plan, coordinate, and direct terror strikes

John, what the hell are you talking about?

It was determined, shortly after the attacks that Bin Laden was the man behind 9/11. He provided material support, inspiration and probably spiritual guidance for the operation. He was in Afghanistan, that was known. The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan, that was known. The Taliban were essentially the state sponsor of Bin Laden. The Taliban were also terrible human rights abusers, the ouster of which would only be good for mankind.

Armed with this knowledge, the location of the single most wanted terrorist ever, the knowledge of training camps, the knowledge of Taliban complicity and the desire for regime change, the U.S. set about to overthrow the government, capture Bin Laden, destroy Al Qaida, combat rival war lords, and occupy a country 40% larger than Iraq with about 10,000 troops.

Fast forward. Now you have 150,000 troops in Iraq, where there was no Bin Laden, little international terror training, no significant security threat, and plenty of domestic state sponsored human rights abuses.

Are you actually sitting there writing with a straight face that the U.S. response to the scenario of Afghanistan is anything but a "compromise" vis a vis the response to the scenario in Iraq?

And you think that Al Qaida is the only organization in the world that doesn't fill leadership vacancies? When you say their leadership is "decimated" what do you mean? Are you parroting the administration's claim that 75% of the leadership has been killed or captured? Surely you know that figure represents but 75% of the leadership known to the CIA in 2001, roughly 20 people, and represents a small number of "leadership individuals" (who operate in a very decentralized organization) and assumes no replacement.

And, whether or not Bin Laden himself is able to "plan, coordinate, and direct terror strikes" (a question for which we have no evidence either way) it is certain, based on a cursory glance at the headlines, that terror groups are still operating, and specifically that Al Qaida and groups closely linked to it are continuing their activities. As you're fond of saying John, words mean things. Calling it your top priority and fighting a "war on terrorism" without devoting most of your resources to apprehending the world's most known and evil terrorists is irresponsible at best.



Iraq was and is not a distraction from the war on terror. It was an integral component of the creation and dissemination of international terrorism. Your position is politically motivated and cannot be confused with a sober assesment of the military situation. It's unfortunate to see the depths the left will go to undermine the President, the military, and the war effort in an attempt to regain power.

Please detail, since you like to make this claim, how Iraq was "an integral component of the creation and dissemination of international terrorism." Because, frankly, I think you're full of it. I wonder how much Iraq spent on undermining foreign governments, how many groups were trainined in Iraq for the purposes of terror, how many people operated and lived in Iraq that had ties to terror groups, etc. Surely there were some, but surely there are some everywhere. Was Iraq unique, and was there any reason to suspect that the confluence of those above listed factors were so overwhelming that Iraq should become the primary focus on the war terror?

Here's the argument you should have made, and one that I could actually respect. "Ok, ok, I admit it. Iraq probably wasn't the threat Bush was making it out to be. It doesn't matter what he knew, or what the reasons were though... because we're there now. If Iraq wasn't a huge threat before, pulling out now and letting the radical element fill the void would certainly pose a danger to the U.S. and the rest of the world."

What that argument does is reframe the debate in realist terms. Who cares about then; it is undeniable that Iraq is a central part of the war on terror now, isn't it? To mishandle the situation now would be to expose us all to risk.

Therefore, you would conclude, based solely on your impression of him, Kerry would invite terror because he wouldn't be as strong, or would waffle, or pull out all together. But, I and others will argue, what of Bush? Here is a man that so monumentally misjudged the threats and misallocated the available resources that he probably created a more serious situation in Iraq while still failing to hold accountable those that perpetrated 9/11. Why should I then think he has what it takes to make the right choices now to finish out Iraq, and then to spread the war on terror to new, expanded fronts?

Basically, my position is this. Bush has proven that he can screw it up. Kerry, at best, based on one's reading of him, gives the impression that he'll screw it up. We're talking people's lives here, It's time for a fresh perspective - one that at least acknowledges the failings of the current situation which, may I remind everyone, Bush has heretofore not done.

[johnb]

But I do believe that the cost/benefit ratio of the Iraq operation was far too low fpr the US, compared to how those resources could have been used to address more credible threats.

What's the value of an individual Iraqi life Steve? Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands. How many mass graves have to be excavated before your math changes? Are the lives of those Kurdish children worth less than the lives of your own children? Why? Because they have brown skin and had the unfortunate accident of being Kurds in Saddam's Iraq? They were shot, gassed, starved, and tortured Steve in an effort to exterminate the Kurdish people. The Arabs have always hated the Kurds and shooting at them is the national pastime in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. I'm curious how you can make that statement as if it is a dry math problem.

This is more general and not necessarily directed at you personally. I'm always intrigued by the self-righteousness of the left, claiming to champion "human rights" until the moment action is expected. Talk is cheap and unless accompanied by action it reveals the talker to be a rank hypocrit. Most leftists will gladly protest any number of causes, yet always seem to find fault with those who actually act to resolve the problem.

I believed that before the operation began, and I believe it more strongly now.

This may sound offensive but sobeit. Don't worry about it, it's not your fight. Those of us who volunteered to serve know it is our fight. You aren't being asked to put yourself out in the least. You're in no danger of being "drafted" and sent in harms way to defend the people and interests of the nation.

I hold the Bush administration responsible for the high cost, low benefit to the US, and lack of global assistance in Iraq, which is why I cannot vote to reelect George Bush.

Not the Russians, French, Germans, and Chinese who tried like hell to stop the US and allies from acting all the while selling Saddam military hardware til the invasion was imminent? Funny how that works. The people who armed Saddam and profited illegally off the "Oil for Food" scandal are immune from your criticism eh?

But like both Bush and Kerry, I don't think we can pull out of Iraq now;

Nonsense, Kerry will have us running out of there the same way Clinton ran from Somalia. Thereby creating a mess worse than before we got in. His 20 year record in the Senate, his deferential treatment of anti-US dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Daniel Ortega, and his virulent anti-war activities and statements in the 70's, 80's and today demonstrate that.

The Deaniacs are Kerry supporters for a reason. They may be dim witted troglodytes but they can see the obvious. As do Hezbollah and Hamas.

however unlikely this is to survive.

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense. It ain't gonna survive. And that's not our problem. All we require is a benign regime that leaves other nations alone, doesn't sponsor terrorists, and keeps the mayhem within it's own borders to a minimum.

[johnb]

Nothing has been compromised. You simply have no idea what you are talking about...Al Qaeda has had it's leadership decimated...he is functionally incapacitated as far as being able to plan, coordinate, and direct terror strikes

John, what the hell are you talking about?

You must be slow Mark. The Taliban regime is non-existant. Al Qaeda has seen it's leadership decimated through capture and death. The organization is non-functional as a unified, cohesive whole. What there is now are local, autonomous groups springing up and the remains of terror cells spread around. They lack a central command, they lack the training facilities and base of operations they had in Afghanistan, they are on the run and hiding. Whether we kill them all or not is moot. It was not imperative that the US kill every Wehrmacht or Waffen SS trooper in WWII. It was imperative we break up their ability to undertake offensive operations and decaptiate the regime. We did. We won. This war is similar in that respect.

It was determined, shortly after the attacks that Bin Laden was the man behind 9/11.

And where has he been for the past two years Mark? Not a word. Not a peep. My opinion is he is dead in a cave buried under tons of rubble. Maggot food. That is the prefered outcome. No grave or known spot of death, hence, no place of pilgrimage or gathering for the lunatics.

And you think that Al Qaida is the only organization in the world that doesn't fill leadership vacancies? When you say their leadership is "decimated" what do you mean?

Exactly what I said. Killed or captured. That individual yahoos are still running around screaming Allahu Akbar is irrelevant, they'll be shot and killed soon enough. The leadership that had the money, the material infrastructure, and the charisma to train, fund, organize, and execute 9/11 style attacks is gone. That doesn't mean there won't be future bin Ladins. It means their power to act is extremely local for the time being. Having the dogs gather in Fallujah is a perfect strategy. Get the vermin concentrated so it takes less Raid to kill large numbers of them.

A megalomainiac like bin Ladin would not go 2 years without a camera shot. That is how he inspired, recruited and directed his followers. That his former deputy is now doing the cameos is quite revealing.

Please detail, since you like to make this claim, how Iraq was "an integral component of the creation and dissemination of international terrorism."

Saddam provided funding for Hamas and Hezbollah, PLO terrorists were in Baghdad hiding from the Mossad up to the invasion. Saddam had a training camp in Iraq complete with a civilian passenger plane used for training terrorists in hijacking. Nothing will convince you that Saddam was a violent, murderous invididual, you're too convinced Bush is a Nazi. But what the hell.

Surely there were some, but surely there are some everywhere. Was Iraq unique, and was there any reason to suspect that the confluence of those above listed factors were so overwhelming that Iraq should become the primary focus on the war terror?

You just contradicted yourself. Whether Iraq hosted 100 or 10,000 terrorists is irrelevant. The state of Iraq hosted terrorists Mark.

What that argument does is reframe the debate in realist terms. Who cares about then; it is undeniable that Iraq is a central part of the war on terror now, isn't it? To mishandle the situation now would be to expose us all to risk.

A militarily aggressive regime which has demonstrated through it's past actions it is willing to use chemical and biological weapons against miliitary and civilian targets, willing to invade neighboring states, willing to engage in a genocide against the Kurds, willing to fund terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Yes Mark, Iraq under Saddam was a very evil place, as were the Chinese, Russians, French and Germans who sold Saddam weapons throughout the UN imposed arms embargo.

Therefore, you would conclude, based solely on your impression of him, Kerry would invite terror because he wouldn't be as strong, or would waffle, or pull out all together.

Kerry would in effect demand terror strikes against the US because he would be weak in the face of the threat. He has no stomach for nor the inclination to do anything but run. He is an American Chamberlain. Appeasement doesn't work, in this case it would be akin to throwing gas on the fire since it would confirm in the minds of the Islamfascists that they are invincible against the "Christian dogs" as they call Bush.

Why should I then think he has what it takes to make the right choices now to finish out Iraq, and then to spread the war on terror to new, expanded fronts?

Well that's the rub isn't it? I don't believe you do think on this matter. It seems you're acting on instictive hatred of Bush, nothing more. Just an irrational, gut level DemocraticUnderground hate. The level of sobriety and rationality one finds from the left is amazingly sparse these days. Hopefully the hate will subside after the election.

We're talking people's lives here,

I hate to be blunt and state the obvious, but don't worry about it Mark. You're not in the military, you'd be the last guy I'd expect to see volunteer whether the fight was solely in Afghanistan or elsewhere. You're not at risk for military service. Leave the fighting to the people that volunteer. All the GI's are asking of you is to not stab us in the back while the war is in progress. We don't need a Somalia II.


After the Iraqi elections in January I would expect US troop levels in Iraq to drop quickly. The new regime will be thugish in many respects but as long as it can keep the gates of the asylum closed and the mayhem inside it will be a success.

[Mark]

Please detail, since you like to make this claim, how Iraq was "an integral component of the creation and dissemination of international terrorism."

Saddam provided funding for Hamas and Hezbollah, PLO terrorists were in Baghdad hiding from the Mossad up to the invasion. Saddam had a training camp in Iraq complete with a civilian passenger plane used for training terrorists in hijacking. Nothing will convince you that Saddam was a violent, murderous invididual, you're too convinced Bush is a Nazi. But what the hell.

Surely there were some, but surely there are some everywhere. Was Iraq unique, and was there any reason to suspect that the confluence of those above listed factors were so overwhelming that Iraq should become the primary focus on the war terror?

You just contradicted yourself. Whether Iraq hosted 100 or 10,000 terrorists is irrelevant. The state of Iraq hosted terrorists Mark.

I'm fairly certain you missed the crux of the point I was making. It does certainly matter whether Iraq had 100 or 10,000 terrorists. If Iraq is claiming the overwhelming majority of the resources to fight the war on terror, shouldn't it have been the state most involved in sponsoring terror?

John, I know Saddam was a violent ruthless dictator. You've pointed to a few examples of what I'm sure you think are pervasive terror ties. I see nothing unique, nothing superlative about the type of "terror" Saddam was supporting. Yes, it was right to try to do something about it - but to make it the central focus? To look at that paltry list and conclude that it represents the gravest danger in the world is pathetic.

Nearly every middle or high income state supports terrorists in some way. I'm going to cite U.S. examples because that's what I'm most familiar with. Don't miss the main point as you're crying that I'm bashing the U.S.

-Saddam funds Hamas et al. (how much, and did it go beyond compensating suicide bombers?) and the U.S. funds Israeli attacks on civilians deemed illegal by international courts. The U.S. also funded, and still funds, proxy forces throughout Latin America who rivaled not the scope but brutality of Saddam.
-PLO terrorist were in Baghdad. Chechen terrorists are in New York and Boston. Haitian terrorists are in Florida. Nicaraguan terrorists are in California. In fact, Putin is on record criticising Bush about harboring Chechen leaders. Think about when it comes to Russian security, Putin gets to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't, just like the Bush administration gets to decide here. Imagine if Russia made no distinction between terrorists and the states that harbor them and launched a little preemptive action of their own? Even if it was limited assasination attempt, what could we say about it? Bush traded away our moral standing - we'd be speechless, indefensible.
-Saddam had a training camp for terrorists. So do the U.S., the School of the Americas which is but one on U.S. soil. I won't bother to list the numerous actions in foreign nations aided by CIA intelligence of training specifically designed to undermine sitting governments and harry local population - which I take to be the textbook definition of terrorism.

Whether or not Bush has retained his familial ties to Nazism doesn't concern me in this case. Let me restate the main idea of what I've just written. You've taken pains to write that Iraq was, and presumably is, central to the war on terror and deserving of the disproportionate amount of resources poured into it. But, you haven't even begun to make a convincing case to suggest why Iraq was unique, how it was different than innumerable other states with respect to terrorism, and how Iraq posed the greatest threat of, and to, all nations. Your failure to do so is telling.



What that argument does is reframe the debate in realist terms. Who cares about then; it is undeniable that Iraq is a central part of the war on terror now, isn't it? To mishandle the situation now would be to expose us all to risk.

A militarily aggressive regime which has demonstrated through it's past actions it is willing to use chemical and biological weapons against miliitary and civilian targets, willing to invade neighboring states, willing to engage in a genocide against the Kurds, willing to fund terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Yes Mark, Iraq under Saddam was a very evil place, as were the Chinese, Russians, French and Germans who sold Saddam weapons throughout the UN imposed arms embargo.

In the most recent conflict can you point to the weapon systems used, obviously very effectively, by Iraq's army that were supplied by the states you listed? A few interesting notes to point out. I find it odd that you highlight those weapons, supplied by others, that were used in defense of the country but fail to mention who supplied the weapons for the crimes you list such as " willing to use chemical and biological weapons against miliitary and civilian targets" which, as perhaps most of us know, was the United States. The U.S. and that list of "evil" countries are together at fault for failing to hold Saddam accountable for his actions then.

Also, forgive me for wondering aloud whether your indignation about French arms sales during an embargo is a little hollow, given that I doubt you much cared that the U.S. was doing almost the same thing in Haiti. I say almost, because the U.S. wasn't, while witholding some humanitarian aid, sending arms to a legitimate leader or government, it was essentially providing material opposition to a popular government. Mmm, hypocrisy.




Therefore, you would conclude, based solely on your impression of him, Kerry would invite terror because he wouldn't be as strong, or would waffle, or pull out all together.

Kerry would in effect demand terror strikes against the US because he would be weak in the face of the threat. He has no stomach for nor the inclination to do anything but run. He is an American Chamberlain. Appeasement doesn't work, in this case it would be akin to throwing gas on the fire since it would confirm in the minds of the Islamfascists that they are invincible against the "Christian dogs" as they call Bush.

You've reinforced my point here. You have nothing but your impression of him. For better or worse, Kerry has no record in this arena, no one can say for sure exactly how he'll handle it. You have as much right to say "He has no stomach for nor the inclination to do anything but run." as I do to say, "Kerry has expressed a desire to broaden the war on terror by soliciting multinational support designed to better combat the diffuse global threat of terror." Well, maybe not, you're trying to read his mind like some kind of mystic and I'm just relaying what he's said.



Why should I then think he has what it takes to make the right choices now to finish out Iraq, and then to spread the war on terror to new, expanded fronts?

Well that's the rub isn't it? I don't believe you do think on this matter. It seems you're acting on instictive hatred of Bush, nothing more. Just an irrational, gut level DemocraticUnderground hate. The level of sobriety and rationality one finds from the left is amazingly sparse these days. Hopefully the hate will subside after the election.

What don't you get? This position isn't an irrational hatred of Bush. It's an observation that the group of people who so miscalculated the Iraqi threat and subsequent plan of action do not deserve a free uncritical pass when it comes to plans for either "finishing" Iraq or conducting the most effective campaign against terror.

How is that not a "sober" or "rational" assessment?



We're talking people's lives here,

I hate to be blunt and state the obvious, but don't worry about it Mark. You're not in the military, you'd be the last guy I'd expect to see volunteer whether the fight was solely in Afghanistan or elsewhere. You're not at risk for military service. Leave the fighting to the people that volunteer. All the GI's are asking of you is to not stab us in the back while the war is in progress. We don't need a Somalia II.

Thank you for assuming my primary concern was with U.S. military casualties. It is not, it is with the unintended, hidden, brutal and inevitable deaths suffered by victims of war and terror generally, particularly the most disadvantaged among them. If hubris means more people get killed than we should concern ourselves with finding an alternative.

[johnb]

johnb wrote:

We're talking people's lives here,

I hate to be blunt and state the obvious, but don't worry about it Mark. You're not in the military, you'd be the last guy I'd expect to see volunteer whether the fight was solely in Afghanistan or elsewhere. You're not at risk for military service. Leave the fighting to the people that volunteer. All the GI's are asking of you is to not stab us in the back while the war is in progress. We don't need a Somalia II.


Thank you for assuming my primary concern was with U.S. military casualties. It is not....

Thanks for the honesty Mark. Somehow I figured you'd sink to the occasion.

[johnb]

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry 10/9/02

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." -- John Kerry, 7/29/02

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[I]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

MSNBC’S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can-can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?" (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 2/5/02)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We’re precisely doing that. And I think that’s what Colin Powell did today." (MSNBC’s "Hardball," 2/5/02)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

How familiar does this sound?

FORMER GOV. HOWARD DEAN (D-VT): "[I] think this was the wrong war at the wrong time ..." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

[johnb]

Yes, it was right to try to do something about it - but to make it the central focus?

You are doing nothing but playing games here Mark. If 10,000 troops in country in Afghanistan is all that is needed to decapitate the Taliban regime, break up Al Qaeda, and get a new government function running then there is no reason to quibble. We've done that and are doing that. Competant military authorities, like General Tommy Franks, state you and Kerry are wrong. Period. Whom to trust on questions of military tactics and capabilities? A socialist like yourself with a visceral hatred of the US military and a leftwing kook running for President or General Franks? Tough question.

The Soviets deployed 10x the number of troops in Afghanistan for a decade and failed to achieve the successes we've engineered in three years. Yep, utterly failure. We're taking our eyes off the ball huh? You're grasping at straws. The US military is fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, among others all while maintaining a presence in Bosnia and Macedonia. Your accusation is baseless because it has no objective meaning to it.

I wonder what whining and carping we'd have heard from you during the battles at Okinawa or Iwo Jima?

[Mark]

Thanks for the honesty Mark. Somehow I figured you'd sink to the occasion.

Please explain how noting that, of all the victims of war, those that do not choose to fight and are killed deserve special consideration and more protection than do those that make waging war their profession is "sinking?"

It is actually humorous you would that automatically find fault with my sentiment that there are people other than residents of the 50 states and territories controlled by the U.S. government with which we ought to be concerned.

It's classic johnb jingoism. And John, this is the last time I will write this for you. I do not hate the U.S. I am thankful everyday that I have the opportunity to live in a society that values tolerance for and respect of most ideas and people, that implores people to be the best they can be, and that provides an atmosphere conducive to growth. It is in light of all that the U.S. does provide, and what it is theoretically capable of, that I find it so odious when U.S. governments, liberal and conservative, put this country on the wrong side of the legal or ethical right. It is not too much to ask that the most powerful and influential state in the world be a model beyond reproach for others. That is the standard I have for the U.S. and I refuse to let you impose anything less on it.

On to your other point. Stop talking about military tactics. That's not what we're concerned with. I have not written, and am not now saying, that it was wrong to send only 10,000 troops into Afghanistan because we didn't get the job done. I'm not saying it was wrong to send 150,000 to Iraq. Clearly military and intelligence officials look at the situation, judge what is necessary to complete the task at hand and use the minimum number of personnel and material to acheive that end.

My problem is this. You've been operating in context of a global war on terror, so let's keep it there. Viewed globally the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns are just segments or theaters of the war. It is a question of military tactics to judge what the needs are for each theater but it is the province of the political to decide the overall scheme for the war and to identify what that tasks that the military will help acheive are. And it is in that political sphere that I find the most fault with the administration.

I don't doubt whether occupying Iraq actually needs 150,000 people and 100+ billion dollars. That's a tactical decision that I have to respect. I can doubt whether Iraq was a proper focus of a global war and whether what the military is trying to acheive in Iraq is the proper focus of that particular campaign. Again, I can doubt those things because they're political decisions. The administration says to the DOD, "Look, we observed X, concluded Y and want to do Z. What will you need, and what will is take to do Z." I won't make criticism of how the military decides to do Z the central point of anything I write. I will hold observations X and conclusion Y up for criticism, however. We all should.

So, Tommy Franks can defend his decisions all he wants. That scenario isn't an issue for me, and doesn't address the larger issue. It's like saying, "The whole house is infested with rats but let me justify that I took care of clearing out the attic with all due process and care." The proper focus of the war on terror can only be decided by the conclusions of many aspects, political considerations, moral considerations, intelligence considerations, technical considerations, military considerations, economic considerations, etc. The Bush team's evaluation of all those considerations has lead to a conclusion that Iraq should be the centerpiece of the war. I think the administration is wrong, I think they misjudged and I think the degree of the their error is indicitive of either deceit, ideological arrogance, or inompetence.

[Wuptdo]

JohnB wrote:


I wonder what whining and carping we'd have heard from you during the battles at Okinawa or Iwo Jima?


JohhB, why the heck are you wasting your time and energy on Mark? We have real villians out there that can do serious harm to our country; namely Easley, Bowles, Kerry, Price, Miller and almost all the incumbents running for re-election in Wake County. Now if you enjoy the debate from purely an exercise in higher brain function -- great. For his age and ability to put togather an argument, Mark is good. Must of have some good professors at Emory, the kind that encourage debate. Whereas at NC State, most professors teach the "booblehead" method of learning.
I digress.



I have been going to N.C. State for several years now as a part-time student. There is a good cross-section of the "working" population at N.C. State, and I make it point to befriend my classmates. I talk to them, get to know them, and try to find out what is important in their lives. Guess what, except for a few exceptions, this generation doesn't give a flying f$$k about anything, but themselves. "9/11 - what's the big deal - I wasn't affected" "American History - it's history, it happened, so what" "the draft - let some stupid kid go." "Man, I can't download free music/movies anymore - bummer" and I can go on. At NC State, I would say it is about 50/50 between Bush/Kerry. If you talk to any of the Professor's (privately), they will tell you student apathy is at a all time high. And add to that, that over the 20 years, the bar has been lowered to students can get better grades (you have to talk to older Phds to get that story).

In my opinion, these kids today have had everything handled to them. They are the product of 50 years of Madison Avenue (with TV) hard work, i.e., ultimate consumers. They want it all, like their parents have, but don't have a clue how their parents got "it" and aren't willing to work for it. My father-in-law calls it "Affluence Disease." They know nothing of "real" war, except for what they see on TV. Most have never known an empty food pantry, and if it is, fast food works fine. Too lazy to go, call for delivery. Their parents wallets are a never ending source of cash (the money tree). Inflation, oh, yeah, I need to put some air in my BMW. Waiting in line for gas, why? Wow, you don't have a camera on your cell phone! What is 300 baud? Pac-man is the only game my dad knows how to play - how lame! Community Service, that's something that "old" people do - we have a PlayStation II tournament this weekend. Serve in the military - that something that losers do cause they can't get a job at Wal-Mart. The "Great Depression" only happened because Prozac hadn't been invented. We laugh at the movie "Clueless," but guess what, it is closer to reality than most know. "Oh-no, not my kid" some say, but it has to be somebody's kid. I'm at the end of the baby boomers, and I believe that we were taught to work hard, so our Children can go to college and have a better life than ours. Looks like it worked.

Mark (and his generation) is a direct by-product of the American success story. He has never known want, nor will he ever appreciate what the sacrafices his parents and grandparents made on his behalf. He has enjoyed an education system that has lowered standards so low, that U.S. is now the joke of the world for education (K-12). (Three major SAT realignments (dumb down) in 1988, 1995 and 2005.) Mark's generation has had the benefits of major breakthrus in medicine and technology and have greatly benefited from it. However, what drives the computer makers/software companies to make better/faster products - computer gaming! I have no doubt, when Mark's generation really takes control of the work force and gain political control, and Social Security/Medicare (or any other major public expense) is about to go bust, they will turn to history (but only if on the Internet) for a solution. And the most cost effective solution will be the "final solution."

I mentioned above there are exceptions to the "Mark Generation." You JohnB (and anyone else who works with kids), are what former President Bush used to call a "shinning point of light." For every "point of light" kid I see at NCSU, there are ten that represent the "Mark Generation." (I wonder if this is caused by all the mothers that had to work outside the household, so their children could have better - cause & effect?)

Mark - hopefully, you understand that I used you as a representative of your generation, as a point of reference and not to be "spikeful." Believe me, you have more on the "ball" than most of your peers.

Coming full circle. JohnB, you know the story about trying to make a pig sing -- it only frustrates you, and annoys the pig. :roll:

Wow, what a poorly written rant - however, it would probably be a "B" at any NC State English class.

Venting done for today - Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

We have real villians out there that can do serious harm to our country; namely Easley, Bowles, Kerry, Price, Miller and ...

C'mon, now, Wup, I'm not dangerous like the others in that crowd! :lol:

[johnb]

This website:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

provides a nice laundry list of Saddam's ties or international terrorism. It also includes pictures of some of his victims. Teenaged Israelis, Americans from 85 to 14 years of age slaughtered by Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and other who fled to Iraq. Some were captured in Iraq already others are still at large. Saddam also had the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak set up for these people and there are photos of it along with the testimony of an Iraqi Army officer who worked there detailing the purpose and activities of Salman Pak.

Mark is wrong. Steve is wrong. Kerry is wrong. Period.

Saddam subsidized terrorists, he gave Iraqi diplomatic passports to terrorists such as Abu Abbas, he provided safe haven and medical care for terrorists including members of Al Qaeda, and he provided training facilities for terrorists. Any statement to the contrary is a lie and those that say such things are either naive, ideologues willfully blind to the truth, or deliberate liars.

[johnb]

Please explain how noting that, of all the victims of war, those that do not choose to fight and are killed deserve special consideration and more protection than do those that make waging war their profession is "sinking?"

First, volunteers do not join the US military to "wage war". You display your hate well. They join to protect the people and Constitution of the US.

Second, I am not under any illusion that you care one wit about the lives of American GI's. Given your statements to date the ONLY reaction from you a reasonable person could imagine at your hearing of US military casualities is joy.

I do not hate the U.S.

********.

I can doubt whether Iraq was a proper focus of a global war and whether what the military is trying to acheive in Iraq is the proper focus of that particular campaign.

Maybe, I suspect though that your righteous indignation is expended only when the US moves to protect the lives and interests of America and American citizens though. It matters not one bit what the US did, the fact that Bush is president and we acted is what appears to have set you off like an IED.

The Bush team's evaluation of all those considerations has lead to a conclusion that Iraq should be the centerpiece of the war. I think the administration is wrong, I think they misjudged and I think the degree of the their error is indicitive of either deceit, ideological arrogance, or inompetence.

You are again completely wrong. Iraq is but one battle in this war. This battle will soon end and the US will move on to address other battles as appropriate. At the time of the Battle of Okinawa that battle was an important consideration in the overall war effort. From start to finish though it was NOT the "central focus" nor the sole focus or anything of the sort. It was one battle in a string of battles that led to ultimate victory. You don't seem to understand anything at all about the military, tactics, organization, or war itself. This is not a Vietnam style "police action" this is a war no less than WWII was. I am sure that after we leave Iraq and look to the next phase of the war on terror we'll hear you regurgitate the same litany of anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric you've used on Iraq.

Wup,

I deal with him only to contest his false statement, one cannot let lies go unaddressed. They take on the look and feel of truth in the minds of the ignorant if left uncontested.

[Mark]

First, volunteers do not join the US military to "wage war". You display your hate well. They join to protect the people and Constitution of the US.

Second, I am not under any illusion that you care one wit about the lives of American GI's. Given your statements to date the ONLY reaction from you a reasonable person could imagine at your hearing of US military casualities is joy.

Your first point is a semantic distinction lost on anyone that considers for even a moment the function of soldiers. The military protects people in one of exactly two way, by force or by threat of force. Military train to effectively kill and otherwise neutralize threat and no soldier has every been active duty without the explicit knowledge that his function is to thwart threats by force and that his situation is often kill or be killed.

Your second statement is uncalled for and offensive. I think you're a shill of the administation and a reactionary blowhard but I'll never accuse you of being happy that U.S. citizens die. I've suggested an immoral indifference to the suffering of others on your part, but to read my statements, which indict not individual soliders but the civilian command that direct them, as express joy at their death is juvenile and wrong.


********.

Thank you for your honest consideration of my defense of the United States and all the good things it does, and can, do. We have John's answer when it comes to holding the U.S. accountable to higher standards, and it's quoted above.



I can doubt whether Iraq was a proper focus of a global war and whether what the military is trying to acheive in Iraq is the proper focus of that particular campaign.

Maybe, I suspect though that your righteous indignation is expended only when the US moves to protect the lives and interests of America and American citizens though. It matters not one bit what the US did, the fact that Bush is president and we acted is what appears to have set you off like an IED.

You may be right that I tend to be more critical when any administration is purporting to act for the "lives and interests of America." Much has been done in what was couched as the interest of the U.S. that clearly was the interests only of those in power or of an small class of people. So, it does matter what the U.S. did insofar as its actions were meant to be forwarding an objective not really supported by U.S. citizens or only vaguely in the interests of the U.S. Look, I condemned Bill Clinton during his administration multiple times for going beyond the scope of international law in attack sovereign states. The paradigm under which the U.S. should operate is one that holds respect for international laws and treaties as a very high interest. Acting contrary to that then renders that action against the interests of the U.S.

I will take it for granted that I do not, at this point, need to make a case why respecting international law and properly ratified treaties is in the U.S. national interest and how failing to do so undermines U.S. interests the world over.


You are again completely wrong. Iraq is but one battle in this war. This battle will soon end and the US will move on to address other battles as appropriate. At the time of the Battle of Okinawa that battle was an important consideration in the overall war effort. From start to finish though it was NOT the "central focus" nor the sole focus or anything of the sort. It was one battle in a string of battles that led to ultimate victory. You don't seem to understand anything at all about the military, tactics, organization, or war itself. This is not a Vietnam style "police action" this is a war no less than WWII was.

Whether it's one battle or a larger theater in a global conflict doesn't really matter - though I think the notion of theater, given the size of the region, differing periods of intensity, overall timeframe, and amount of resources employed support my interpretation. The point is that there, by necessity, has to be some opportunity cost to the U.S. actions in Iraq. Be it dwindled resources available for future "battles," compromised international support for the cause, limited international credibility or standing, reduced domestic support, decreased troop morale, lost opportunity to strike a broader array of terrorist groups before allowing some increased degree of entrenchment, an increase in support for terrorist methods aimed at the U.S. across the Middle East... you get the idea. This battle may have been waged as it needed to have been- all I'm suggesting is that the U.S. may have been shooting itself in the foot in the process. And, if Iraq turns out to be a victory (and we all have our doubts), I wonder if the U.S. leadership in the war on terror wouldn't have been so compromised that the victory would be rendered Pyrrhic.

You needn't keep responding John because you think my uncontested lies will warp the minds of the other "ignorant" readers of Cary Politics. I doubt there's a single undecided, about this issue or the election, among us - so we can agree to disagree if you like.

[johnb]

Your second statement is uncalled for and offensive. I think you're a shill of the administation and a reactionary blowhard but I'll never accuse you of being happy that U.S. citizens die. I've suggested an immoral indifference to the suffering of others on your part, but to read my statements, which indict not individual soliders but the civilian command that direct them, as express joy at their death is juvenile and wrong.

Mark, your statements do not appear in a vacumn. They are not isolated from that which have earlier said. That being the case, your statement welcoming the support of the chief Imam of the Hezbollah terrorist organization for Kerry's candidacy pretty much put you in the place you are now. That being, you are willing to accept as allies either ideologically, politically, maybe otherwise, terrorist organizations dedicated to the destruction of the US in order to achieve short term political gain.

You said it we can repost your own words, but to borrow a term, you can run but you cannot hide.

Anyone who would welcome support from an organization dedicated to the imposition of world wide Shari'a, the destruction of America and her allies, the repression of the rights of freedom of religion and conscience has no right to pretend to be offended as you are doing here.

And yes, ********, you cannot mean it when you also make statements welcoming the support of terrorists for your favored political candidate.

[johnb]

I welcome the support of every terrorist organization that wants Bush out. Yes, I said it. It signals hope.

Mark, these are your own words. These are not the words of someone who loves his country. They aren't the words of someone who respects the rule of law and the sanctity of the election process.

These are the words of someone willing to ally themselves with the enemy of America in attempt to gain short term political advantage. Period. Your own words **** you. You have no right to pretend to be offended when I criticise your alleged patriotism or suggest you celebrate the death or wounding of GI's in the field. Those terrorists whose support for John Kerry you "welcome" are the people our GI's are fighting. Not too mention the people the army of the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, are fighting as well.

Some show of support for democracy huh? Ally yourself with medieval terrorist organizations seeking to impose the shari'a on the whole world, exterminate the Jews, and repress freedom of conscience and religion. Nice move.

[Mark]

Let's dissect your opposition to my statement for a moment.


Mark, these are your own words. These are not the words of someone who loves his country. They aren't the words of someone who respects the rule of law and the sanctity of the election process.

Hold on there partner, I never said I wanted Hezbollah out conducting terror campaigns in order to get Kerry elected. Look at what I said in context, you posted only part of it. "It signals hope." I welcome the support of those groups to the extent that it signifies their acknowledgment that the U.S. isn't a monolithic entity that must necessarily be destroyed. If they, and we, can understand that it's some things that the U.S. does, and not the U.S. itself, that emboldens terrorists, than we're all better off. And I mean "support" in the most limited way, read as "endorsement." I don't think I want them going door to door. And, the original statement in the story you posted didn't even go so far as to endorse Kerry, only that resistance would drive Bush out.

How that applies to not respecting the country or the rule of law isn't at all clear. I think my position, while certainly out of the mainstream, is ultimately one that seeks to serve the security of the U.S.


These are the words of someone willing to ally themselves with the enemy of America in attempt to gain short term political advantage. Period.

Holy hell, you actually think I'm a terrorist, don't you? Or at least, if the mood struck and the day was right, have the capacity to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. I actually don't know quite what to say to that aside from noting that it's ridiculous. Man, an ally of the enemies of the U.S. I'll tell you this, my wife is going to be pissed when she finds out.

But more seriously John, it's not about short term gain. For that to be true, I'd have to think that Hezbollah's desire to see Bush out would have to translate into short term gain for Kerry. Suffice it to say, I don't think this particular fact is winning Kerry any votes. I don't see how noting that a factual event had transpired (an "endorsement") and commenting that I support the broader meaning of said factual event means that I'm an ally of the group that undertook the event.


Those terrorists whose support for John Kerry you "welcome" are the people our GI's are fighting.

Again, it's not a small difference that the original statement referred not to electing Kerry, but to removing Bush. I will continue to maintain that it's not unreasonable to want to see removed a person who you think is at least partly responsible for bringing suffering to you and your associates.

More to the point, say it's actually true that terrorist want Kerry to win. First, does that actually change how the votes will be allocated here on election day. Will that fact garner Kerry a windfall from closet terrorist sympathisers?


Some show of support for democracy huh? Ally yourself with medieval terrorist organizations seeking to impose the shari'a on the whole world, exterminate the Jews, and repress freedom of conscience and religion. Nice move.

Again, I'm not sure how expressing hope that this one groups' statement could be read as indication of a future of possible peace makes one an ally of terrorism. I don't support killing anyone John, in contrast to your own views that you've graciously shared with us time and again. Hezbollah is fundamentally undemocratic and should not be supported in their goals. That is not incompatible with that group making a statment that I find is in keeping with the cause of fostering democracy and justice worldwide. I can't saying anything else about it.

What does this have to do with a judgment regarding Iraq's centrality in the war on terror again?

[johnb]

"It signals hope." I welcome the support of those groups to the extent that it signifies their acknowledgment that the U.S. isn't a monolithic entity that must necessarily be destroyed.

That's right Mark, they see that the US can be divided on matters of foreign policy that were not possible during WWII and the Cold War. They believe they can "influence" our election the way the "influenced" the eleciton in Spain earlier this year. You "welcome" that it seems.

The safety of America, her people, and her interests should be something that unifies the people of this nation and should not be a matter of foreign influence peddling, especially not on the part of terrorists seeking the destruction of this nation. It's incredible that you don't get it.

If they, and we, can understand that it's some things that the U.S. does, and not the U.S. itself, that emboldens terrorists, than we're all better off.

Great, another charter member of the Blame America First club. No Mark, there is NOTHING the US did that provoked 9/11. Islam has it's own internal motivations for dealing with non-Muslims. We got the same deal the Islamofascists have meted out to all non-Muslims they've come in contact with. NYC on 9/11 was a small glimpse of the savage butchery they unleashed on Constantinople in 1452 when the conquered that city. They slaughtered the non-Muslim inhabitants for the same reason: they were infidels who resisted Islamic domination. It is the height of arrogance to assume that every person and cause in the world acts in reaction to America. They have their own motivations and justifications that have nothing to do with us, especially Muslims as their key motivation predates America by thousand years.

And I mean "support" in the most limited way, read as "endorsement."

Of course you do Mark and a Nazi party endorsement of Wendell Wilkie would never have been used by you or those like you to attack Republicans into eternity now would it? ********. The endorsement of a murderous terrorist organization bent on destroying America and implementing worldwide shari'a should be confronted how exactly? Your way? That merely embolden's the terrorists to attack our troops in Iraq and take more hostages in an effort to influence our elections. Zarqawi's group has already made clear their position before murdering Ken Bigley, there are no negotiations, there are only demands they make which the West must accept or they murder hostages. What part of that do you not understand?

How that applies to not respecting the country or the rule of law isn't at all clear.

Actually, you're wrong again. It is crystal clear. We are at war with a stateless gang of terrorists pushing an ideology of death and intolerance. You will bend over backwards and believe the unbelievable because of your hatred for Bush. Their goal is NOT peaceful co-existance. Never has been and never can be. How you can close your eyes to the truth and ignore the words coming out of their mouths and pretend they are something other than what they are is baffling. Your position is one that risks the lives of GI's in the field. Your new friends there are bent on the destruction of this nation. If you cannot put 1 and 1 together and come up with 2 you are at a place that cannot be reached via logic. Your position, if placed in 1944, would be akin to an American urging us to "reach out" to Nazi party members who expressed a preference for a candidate other than Roosevelt for president in an effort to end the war without further fighting. No different.

Holy hell, you actually think I'm a terrorist, don't you?

No. I don't believe you have the courage of those convictions to actually act as the terrorists do. I do believe, however, you are fearful enough to accept "peace in our time" when that means giving in to their demands, whatever those demands might be.

Or at least, if the mood struck and the day was right, have the capacity to commit terrorist acts against the U.S.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, et al, are not playing games Mark. They are deadly serious about their end goal: the destruction of Israel, the extermination of the Jews and subjugation and repression of Christians in the Middle East, and the aggressive expansion of Islam until all non-Muslim states and peoples have been brought low and made to pay the slave tax, the jizyah. They are deadly serious and they are doing EXACTLY what Mohammed told his followers to do. The script was writtin in the 7th century and has been the standard opertating procedure of Islam since. Islam, like simliar aggressive ideologies, has a need for active and committed participants in it's struggle. It also makes use of passive helpers and in fact Mohammed instructed his followers to use terror as a means to break their enemies will to resist. Some are easier to break than others.

Suffice it to say, I don't think this particular fact is winning Kerry any votes.

That is not necessary. They aren't trying to win friends. They are trying to sow fear. That is why the videotape the decapitation of their hostages. Their message is that by backing down, in effect accepting Muslim demands, will spare the murder of more hostages, until they are prepared to being a new round of demands. There will never be negotiations among equals seeking peaceful co-existance with them regardless of who the president is. That is not how the Koran commands them to act. A "truce" exists only as a short term expedient until the Muslims have built the strength necessary to continue the military jihad.

I don't see how noting that a factual event had transpired (an "endorsement") and commenting that I support the broader meaning of said factual event means that I'm an ally of the group that undertook the event.

That is quite simple. Their goals are set in stone. They are non-negotiable as the terrorists freely admit. Their use of the ritual decapitation of hostages is solely to imprint fear in the souls of civilized humanity. You are an ally of that group in that you have chosen to accept them as something other than what they are and believe they're just another party to a dispute among equally aggrieved factions. They are aggressive, violent, and bent on our destruction and the imposition of their ideology upon us. Lennin once said that when they would hang their enemies the capitalists would sell them the rope, you seem to be one of that type, what Lennin referred to as 'useful idiots'. There are only two sides in this fight Mark.

I don't support killing anyone John, in contrast to your own views that you've graciously shared with us time and again.

That's not quite accurate. The difference here is not that I personally would and you personally would not. The difference here is I am willing to be deployed, pick up a gun, a kill an Islamofascist. You are *personally* unwilling to kill I'm sure, but you are also don't want others to take the steps necessary to defend America, her people, and interests from hostiles such as the Islamofascists. "Peace in our time" didn't stop Hitler and it won't stop the Islamofascists.

Mark, there is something very wrong about a person who can't find anything worth fighting for. Frankly, I can. Freedom of conscience, religion, speech, et al, are in my opinion worth me fighting, killing and possibly dying for. I am willing to get mobilized, go to the Iraq or wherever the next battle in the war on terrorism is and fight like hell for Don Hyatt's right to host this board and allow us to make statements that will offend someone or even everyone. Our enemies in this war don't give a **** about Bush' prescription drug bill or Kerry's tax plan. Those things are irrelevant. These people cannot be negotiated with. They can only be defeated and if that means killing them fine. Our troops may kill innocent civilians in the process. That is not because we target them. That is the nature of war. Our enemies deliberately target civilians, women, and children in order to maximize the fear they create and need.

Hezbollah is fundamentally undemocratic and should not be supported in their goals. That is not incompatible with that group making a statment that I find is in keeping with the cause of fostering democracy and justice worldwide. I can't saying anything else about it.

Any statement they make MUST be understood in light of the fact that they are terrorists and their goal is our destruction. Nothing they say should be taken without understanding their goal is our subjugation or death. They said what they said because it dovetails with their goals. Kerry is the candidate of fear. He has neither the stomach nor the inclination to go after that type and terminate the threat they pose to the free world. They know that. It was to Hitlers disadvantage that Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill. The Islamofascists would gain by replacing Bush with Kerry.

[johnb]

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Politics&storyId=940050

Senator John Kerry: "With the same energy ... I put into going after the Viet Cong and trying to win for our country, I pledge to you I will hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists before they harm us," Kerry said. "And we will wage a war on terror that makes America proud and brings the world to our side."

Interesting thing for Senator Kerry to say.

Fair enough, let's look at his Vietnam service.

1-He spent 1/3 of a tour in Vietnam, not the standard 12 months.

2-He left Vietnam at the first opportunity available to him, leaving his shipmates for safety in the states.

3-He did so by collecting three in-theater Purple Hearts all for extremely minor wounds, at least one of which was self-inflicted.

In contrast, he was the only Swiftboat officer to leave Vietnam before one year without suffering a major wound or dead.

When he got back he attacked the United States and the GI's who served in Vietnam, calling them "war crimminals".

He went to Paris to meet with the Communist leaders.

He joined a Communist front group in America (VVAW) and was present in a meeting where they discussed assasinating 6 US Senators in an effort to undermine support for the war in Congress.

He led an "investigation" (Winter Soldier) into US conduct in Vietnam that relied on false testimony and the testimony of "Vietnam veterans" who were never in Vietnam to support a pre-determined outcome which he used to smear the GI's who did serve in Vietnam.

He not organized massive demonstrations against the war he publicly repudiating his own service by tossing his medals away.

Okay. He wants the voters to put him in the White House so he can "lead" the war on terror like THAT?

Given his track record and the fact that he held his Vietnam "service" up as a model for how he'd handle the war on terror, I'd say Hezbollah knows exactly who'll cut and run in this war.

[Wuptdo]

Here is an interesting analysis of the recent OBL tape:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404

Hopefully, the MSM will let us know what was on the missing 12 minutes; but then again - not!

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

From what I read the rest is a rant against Bush 41 and a litany of complaints about the election in Afghanistan to include some dismay at the lack of violence employed to disrupt it.

[SteveG]

Here is an interesting analysis of the recent OBL tape:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404

Hopefully, the MSM will let us know what was on the missing 12 minutes; but then again - not!

Wuptdo B-)

The "analysis" claims that Osama is threatening US states individually. I disagree; I believe that by "states" Osama is clearly referring to nations of the world, hence his reference to Sweden.

Here is the CNN translation transcript for the "state" reference:
"Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

As for attacking US states that voted for George W, in 2000 New York, DC, Pennsylvania and Oregon all went to Gore. But I guess Osama had to attack in Gore states, because in the states that went for W in 2000 there really isn't much in the way of urban landmarks worth hitting.

[Anonymous]

How can Osama now claim ""Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." AFTER he attacked us?

A little contradictory don't you think?

[Mark]

A little contradictory don't you think?

Not if, as he does, one thinks that the U.S. attacked first.

[Wuptdo]

From what I understand, OBL believes the first attack on the Muslin world by the U.S. was the bombing and shelling of Beirut. This occured after the bombing of the Marine Barracks by a suicide bomber. For those with short-term memory see this site:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm

A few months later the Muslin world was introduced to the USS New Jersey:

http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/index.cfm?fa=history

Ok, the carrier planes did most of the damage. But OBL has made several references to skyscappers in Beirut being destroyed by the Americans and he want to do the "eye for an eye" thing. Thus began his quest to destroy the greatest Towers in the world. To OBL, the twin towers represented all that was America, i.e., the great Satan! This is very oversimplified view, but it is a busy day.

This just in from the New York Post (If you can't trust the NYP who can you trust?)

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

You are wrong again Steve. You are relying on main stream media sources which is your first problem.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera [1] on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") [2] to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

This is a translation from Arabic to English by people who do this for a living. bin Laden is threatening individual US states. Try again.

[SteveG]

You are wrong again Steve. You are relying on main stream media sources which is your first problem.

...
This is a translation from Arabic to English by people who do this for a living. bin Laden is threatening individual US states. Try again.

Wilaya has multiple uses in Arabic, just as state has in English. It refers to a government over a geographic area, an area under a single ruler or government, or that ruler or government itself. That government may be a province within a nation (i.e. each province in Algeria is called a Wilaya, and there are multiple states in the US) or the entire nation or its government (i.e. heads of state).

An accurate translation would have been to simply use the flexible term "state" in the place of "wilaya"; to insert the term "U.S." in front of state inaccurate; Osama did not use U.S. as a modifier. If Osama wanted to threaten the US states individually to protect his interests, he could have (as if he fears an attack by Rhode Island). He very clearly stated that electing Kerry would not protect America's security, so why would he contradict himself by implying that states should not elect Bush? I believe, like the rest of the mainstream analysts, that he aims his warning against multiple nations including Britain, who use force against militant muslim groups.

[Wuptdo]

I just found this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005834

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Sorry Steve, I'm going to be eminently reasonable and go with the translation from the former Israeli intelligence service agents who know the Arabic language and culture on this one. They're right, you're wrong.

As an aside.....Michael Moore knows the truth about Cut'n Run Kerry:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

To John Kerry:

Thank you.
And don’t worry – none of us are going away after you are inaugurated. We’ll be there to hold your hand and keep you honest. Don’t let us down. We’re betting you won’t. So is the rest of the world.

That’s it. See you at the polls – and at the victory party tomorrow night.

Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com


============

Read the whole article though, Moore is insane...although he picked up the clues that some Donkeycrats won't admit......Cut'n Run Baby, Cut'n Run.

[Mark]

Bright people at the Journal, for sure, but not without their hidden biases and agendas. Naturally, why should they be any different from anyone else?

Anyway, consider this passage, which stands as a critical block upon which they decide Kerry unfit.

"It is here that John Kerry has made his most significant contribution to American culture. It has been his persistent belief for more than 30 years that American military power is not a force for good. Rather he believes that by fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people and for liberty in Iraq today, America has surrendered its moral authority."

They're setting up an impossible situation here, one of their own making. They're ascribing properties to the two conflicts that Kerry has not, and probably would not, ascribe to them and then faulting him for criticising the war based on their, not his, terms.

First, it would indeed be wrong of Kerry, or anyone, to think that the U.S. military cannot be a force of good. The Journal would have us believe this is indeed Kerry's position without offering any evidence for it. That fact that they deem it obvious is telling. What is obvious is that Kerry believes the U.S. military has the capacity to do harm, and that it does not always do good. That is all he would likely admit, and I suspect, all he has ever said. It does not take much, in the minds of those who listen to long or too hard to opinions too similar to their own, to take what is, at least, a debatable position and render it into a contemptably outrageous one.

I will maintain that this weaker position, that the U.S. military has not always been a force of good is one that, while certainly unpopular, is not radical, and has a proper place in the critique and evaluation of government. To turn that position into the one the paper quoted seems to me a deliberate attempt to find a way to dismiss as absurd the candidate's positions and the candidate himself. Such a practice is, in itself, contemptable.

Next, the Journal makes a subtle move that links their false statement in the second sentence with a straw man they set up in the third. John Kerry doesn't ever think the U.S. military does good, but rather thinking fighting for freedom and liberty is bad.

This fails on two accounts. First, it is absolutely unclear, and not without debate, that the objective of the Vietnam war was "fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people" or that the objective in Iraq was to fight, "for liberty." In fact, for this editorial to have much force we should be convinced that this is a) the actual case and, more importantly b) what John Kerry himself would say about the wars. I do not believe that those objectives were and are true in all analyses and I suspect that they are not true for John Kerry.

What the Journal here has done is attempted to impeach Kerry for not concurring with a definition they created and tried to pass off as universal and unassailable.

But, that's not really the worst of. The other point on which it fails is that, even if those objectives are acceptable for the purposes of this debate, the Journal is trying to posit that it was the objectives of the wars to which Kerry objects, and that in doing so, Kerry implicitly objects to freedom and liberty.

This view completely fails to account for context, something I think Kerry has gone to great pains to provide. He clearly didn't see the objective of the U.S. war in Vietnam as so clear as was stated here. But, beyond that, it's also clear that his biggest hang up with the conflict wasn't the prospect of a free South Vietnam, but rather the war's administration. Same, too, with Iraq. The suggestion that Kerry doesn't like liberty in Iraq is preposterous. The fact that he'd oppose the war, or think the U.S. would lose moral authority, because it was trying to foster a free and liberal Iraq is asinine. Kerry doesn't think fighting for freedom costs moral authority, I believe he thinks arrogantly rushing to war without exhausting peaceful solutions and chiding former allies does.

I think he's right.

And the Wall Street Journal, by failing to distinguish between the spectre Kerry they've constructed, and the real one out there in the world, is wrong.

T minus 11 hours until voting begins in earnest. Here's to a smooth ride.

[Mark]

John, why you assume that the major media outlets don't too have native arabic speakers and trained linguists on staff or contract is beyond me. Why, also, the U.S. intelligence agencies haven't come out and supported Mermi's interpretation (surely we all agree that they have properly trained language analysts) also remains to be seen.

Mermi does not have a monopoly in the translation business.

[johnb]

No Mark, I would not assume that CNN has it's own Arabic speaking staff. They may, but not likely. What is more likely is that a left leaning 'news' outlet used a translation they can't authenticate.

I trust the former Israeli intelligence officers whose job required them to understand not just Arabic, but Arab culture to ensure the survival of their people. They have a reason and the ability to deliver clear and concise data. Their survival depends upon it. For all you or I know, CNN got their translation from an Arab immigrant who is trying to minimize the ugliness of the original. Then again that person may not understand English as well as he or she understands Arabic. It may be deliberately mistranslated or it may have inadvertantly mistranslated.

Besides, if it was a translator hired by CNN the translator would know where CNN is politically. CNN would get what the translator thinks CNN wants to hear, not necessarily what is accurate.