Posted on 11/17/2005 9:12:40 AM PST by Reagan Man
Sorry about all the typos and layout errors. Read the more readable version at the blog.
I don't suppose he is thinking Syria or Iran here.
The more shrill and defeatest the Dems become, the more I believe we are closer to victory. They are using the old Vietnam playbook. This time we cannot let them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Frankly, at this point I don't know if Bush would get enough support to pass a declaration of war. While most Americans want the job completed in Iraq before we pull out, a majority of Americans think going into Iraq in the first place was a bad move. I don't know if drawing a line in the sand at this point would help matters. Then again, it just might rally forces in the President's favor. Tough call.
I would add that we are fighting AQ in Iraq. Those are the same folks who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Does Murtha believe that AQ will move out of Iraq if we do?
I just received this today and want to share it with you. The author is not known.
___________________________________________________________
France is burning, Denmark holds 4 terrorists, Australia arrested 16 - including radical Muslim cleric, Belgium cars burning, Germany cars burning!!!!
The root of the world's woes and problems are caused by the fanatics of the various religions. The teachings of
Mohammed have always touted spreading their faith by the sword. I feel this message hits the heart of our troubles. We have to realize that we are at war and unite to win.
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world -
German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.
The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful
Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France.France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100%
effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with
Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results
of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other
country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we
are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to
be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be
fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
> There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to
> anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
>
Actually, VietNam was a lost cause back in 1968. That's why Republicans backed Nixon. He promised to get us out, as he called it, through "peace with honor". That went on for another 7 more years. In the end, the USA was forced to cut and run. We had no choice. The war in Iraq is different. Its part of the WOT. Support for the war has gone down, for several reasons. The President needs to use the bully pulpit to his advantage. Instead of sitting back and allowing the Dems to attack his credibility and integrity on the war in Iraq.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Just because a man served honorably, or even with distinction, doesn't preclude him from being a scum-bag. Look at Charlie Rangle!
After all, didn't Lee Harvey Oswald serve? Timothy McVey? And then, of course, Benedict Arnold, who probably saved the fledgling Republic before he turned traitor.
Mark
Does anyone have the quote (from Lincoln, I believe)to the effect that congressmen who undermine the war effort should be shot?
(I had it & lost it ...)
I think you're wrong on this - I've read where he was pagan or a satanist or something like that.
The American Infantada continues...
PresEisenhower had success sending in 10,000 Marines in 1958, backed up by the 6th fleet. The US wanted to keep the regime of President Camille Chamoun in power. Right or wrong, the status quo was kept in place for America's best interests. There was no reason to think the outcome of sending in the Marines in the 1982 would be any different.
The US Marines were part of a multinational peackeeping force, that was thrown into the middle of a civil war in Beirut Lebanon. After the Marine barracks was car bombed, US intelligence efforts never concluded who was responsible for the bombing and the killings. Some placed responsibility on Hezbollah, with help from Syria and/or Iran. Some reports said Islamic Jihad actually took credit for the action. No one has ever been held accountable for the 1983 bombing.
In response to the Marine barracks bombing, the Reagan adminstration proposed a plan to knock off a military barracks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger opposed such a move. He said any attack without positive proof of who committed the action would lead to an expanded war, dragging the US further into the conflict. At the time we were still involved in fighting the Soviet Empire. Getting dragged into a civil war in the ME would have undermined Reagan's efforts in the Cold War. Reagan listened to Weinberger advice. Until this day, Weinberger insists the blame for who committed the Marine barracks bombing is unknown.
Under the state of confusion that existed at that time in Lebanon, I can see why the culprit(s) were never found out. Reagan did order air bombing and shelling from the USS New Jersey. Soon afterwards, the Marines were pulled out for good. It was a smart move at the time. Reagan knew that Lebanon was an untenable situation and besides, we had bigger fish to fry.
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are 25% more
likely to be shot and killed in the Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion:
We should immediately pull out of Washington, D.C.
Nuther RAT scared shiiteless we'll win oo soon!
I was there from 1967 to 1968, including Tet, which was a major defeat the the VC and NVA. It wasn't a lost cause in 1968 and our troop strength didn't hit its peak until April 30, 1969 with 543,400. Nixon started the process of Vietnamization, which actually worked fairly well.
That went on for another 7 more years. In the end, the USA was forced to cut and run. We had no choice.
The war didn't go on for us for 7 more years. We had steady draw down of troops concluding on March 29, 1973 when the last remaining American troops withdrew from Vietnam as President Nixon declares "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come." January 27, 1973 marked the last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde.
We didn't cut and run. We were never defeated in any significant action on the battlefield. We had an orderly drawdown of troops. By the end of 1969, America's fighting strength in Vietnam has been reduced by 115,000 men. On November 20, 1970, American troop levels drop to 334,600. On December 17, 1971, U.S. troop levels drop to 156,800.
On April 30, 1972, U.S. troop levels drop to 69,000. By November 30, 1972, American troop withdrawal from Vietnam is completed, although there are still 16,000 Army advisors and administrators remaining to assist South Vietnam's military forces.
On June 19, 1973,the U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate. The Amendment paves the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing. The US effectively stops funding the South Vietnamese military effort.
The South Vietnamese fought the North Vietnames and VC (what was left of them) for over two years by themselves. In violation of the Paris Peace Accords, on January 8, 1975,the NVA general staff plan for the invasion of South Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam's Politburo. By now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory. But in reality, South Vietnam's forces will collapse in only 55 days.
The US had a choice in Vietnam, but the Dems cut the legs out from under the South Vietnamese. If you read the history of the war, the North Vietnamese felt the only hope that had of winning was to defeat support for the war in the US. Vietnamization was working. The Dem controlled Congress gave them victory.
The same tactics are being used now by the Dems, who are once again trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The legacy of Vietnam was millions sent to reeducation camps, hundreds of thousands of boat people, tens of thousands murdered by the Communists, and a country that still lives today under a Communist dictatorship. We can't let them do this again in Iraq and negate the sacrifice of our military.
The President needs to use the bully pulpit to his advantage. Instead of sitting back and allowing the Dems to attack his credibility and integrity on the war in Iraq.
Agree to a point. We also need GOP congressmen to have a spine and support the President and not approve resolutions like the Seante passed the other day. We need leadership from everyone, not just the President.
>>>>It wasn't a lost cause in 1968 ...
Winning the Tet offensive and increasing troop strength, didn't change the obvious historical fact. For all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War was a lost cause by 1968. LBJ's Presidency was destroyed and he was forced to step down because the Vietnam War was being lost. Nixon became the GOP nominee and ultimately the POTUS for one reason. He said, I will get us out of Vietnam using a strategy of "peace with honor". Nixon made that promise in 1968.
>>>>The war didn't go on for us for 7 more years.
The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973. On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam. The last US military deaths in the Vietnam War occured on April 30, 1975. That's when the last Marines left aboard a helicopter from the rooftop of the US Embassy. 1968 to 1975 is a period of 7 years. We did win every major battle of the Vietnam War, but we lost the war itself.
>>>>We didn't cut and run.
The Vietnam War was handled wrong from the get-go. The US did have a choice in Vietnam, but there never was any clear objective for winning the whole shooting match. Instead of total war on the North, we chose to slowly wind down our military forces and hand things over to the South. So be it.
There was no peace with honor for the US in the Vietnam War. That was my point. I don't want to see that ever happen again. Whether it be in Iraq, or in some other future military engagement.
I think when it comes to Iraq, we're on the same page. The Iraqi's need to be made ready and prepared to take full control. Then and only then, will it be time for the US to start a orderly reduction in our forces. The WOT isn't going to end anytime soon. If we pull out from Iraq and bring the troops home immediately, within no time we'll be routinely fighting the terrorists on American soil. In fact, I believe we need to keep some level of military presence in Iraq for a long term. The US needs to have a base of operations from which to strike at the heart of the terrorists in short order.
I believe we're winning in Iraq. As I said, the problem is PresBush needs to use the bully pulpit to his advantage. Bush needs to keep the upper hand. Instead of sitting back and allowing the Dems to attack his credibility and integrity on the war in Iraq. Bush can't allow the Dems to further underminre the war effort. Period.
The War was being lost in what way? Certainly not militarily. It was the media and the Dems that created the false image that we were losing the war. Walter Cronkite's famous after-Tet analysis that the war was not winnable was the so-called watershed event that led to decreasing support for the war. LBJ stepped down after barely beating Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire Primary. McCarthy received 42% of the vote to LBJ's 49%.
The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973. On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam. The last US military deaths in the Vietnam War occured on April 30, 1975. That's when the last Marines left aboard a helicopter from the rooftop of the US Embassy. 1968 to 1975 is a period of 7 years. We did win every major battle of the Vietnam War, but we lost the war itself.
You can rationalize all you want. The war ended for the US in 1973. On June 19, 1973,the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment which forbid any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. January 27, 1973 marked the last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde. The deaths of Marines (MSG) assisting in the evacuation of our Embassy were not combat deaths.
We lost the war because we lost public support for the war.
The Vietnam War was handled wrong from the get-go. The US did have a choice in Vietnam, but there never was any clear objective for winning the whole shooting match. Instead of total war on the North, we chose to slowly wind down our military forces and hand things over to the South. So be it.
It was handled wrong because the politicians micromanaged its conduct rather than letting the military run it. It could have been won militarily despite the major support provided by the Chinese and the Soviets. We allowed sanctuaries and permitted ports like Haiphong to remain untouched until late in the war. We allowed the dikes in the North to remain intact. We pursued a policy of gradual escalation, The list goes on and on.
The decision not to wage total war was a poltical decison in much the same way that was the case in Korea. There was great concern that total war could lead to a nuclear confrontation and/or hoards of Chinese entering the war. The Soviets also had the ability to apply pressure in Europe and Cuba.
There was no peace with honor for the US in the Vietnam War. That was my point. I don't want to see that ever happen again. Whether it be in Iraq, or in some other future military engagement.
Agree there. The US attempted to achieve something less than victory. The North Vietnamese Communists ignored the Peace Agreement, invaded the South, and took over the entire country. The legacy of that defeat lives today.
In fact, I believe we need to keep some level of military presence in Iraq for a long term. The US needs to have a base of operations from which to strike at the heart of the terrorists in short order.
Morethan likely the Iraqis will want us to maintain some presence there in much the same way is the case in Korea, Japan, Europe, and Bosnia/Kosovo. We need to be victorious for that to happen.
Bush can't allow the Dems to further underminre the war effort. Period.
Bush can't do it himself. He needs Congress. It was Congress that cut us off at the knees in Vietnam.
If you want the real story on Vietnam, I suggest you read the The Boston Manifesto
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
