Posted on 11/12/2006 7:36:33 AM PST by FlameThrower
In this regard, Iraq is quite similar to Viet Nam.
"Bush’s original strategy was preemption: to attack and destroy the terrorist in their homes before they could muster an attack. To eliminate the festering failed States that sustained them. It morphed under pressure to nation-building. We will soon adopt a third way: we will “redeploy” out of Iraq – tail between our legs. And the terrorist will follow us home. The nuclear attacks will be random, unstoppable and devastating."
Again just as in Viet Nam. The only difference was that Communism wasn't about destroying the Western ideology to death, which is the goal of Islam. It is mind blowing to believe the leftist's in this country, can't or won't understand and accept that fact.
I am sure that I am not the only one who knew exactly what needed to be done on 9/12/01. But I also knew we wouldn't have the fortitude to do it. There is still time. I am not quite as fatalistic as this excellent writer, but close. As, that said, the Rubicon is about to be crossed.
The damage has already been done. The important thing is to not go wobbly.
Personally, I agree with this author, but disagree about what the use of nukes in our cities would do. Face it, the nukes would kill mostly Democrats...
An, I am with you mega bump.
.
They'll wipe out every financial institution and many companies.
People will stampede out into the suburbs. Civil war will ensue. (Look at Houston post-Katrina. Multiply by thousands.)
Distribution of food and medicine will suffer. Barter economies do not work well over long distances.
I'm sort of glad I'm approaching 60. Wouldn't want to be around like that for long.
I don't think Bush, Cheney and Rice are going softly into that good night.
Well, with respect and not to seem overly mordant, this is not shown. If the will to reply is not there, it isn't going to happen. And what might possibly motivate leadership not to reply to a nuclear terrorist attack?
That's very simple. A leadership with motivations other and superior to the defense of its citizens, such as the promotion of world government, might find not replying in its overall interest. One faced with massive retaliation from other governments who back the terrorists for their own interests might not reply. One weakened and enervated by faction might find it convenient not to reply if its ideological foes are the only ones attacked.
It's perfectly imaginable. I think that in the current radical wing of the Democratic party we see figures who are more than capable of allowing this sort of outrage in pursuit of some "higher" goal.
Do not give up your guns, because the police who will be told to protect you might just as easily be told not to. The same goes for national defense.
Thus always to tyrants.
It is why their party is consumed with gutting the second amendment.
Just think of it, if the average citizen could not purchase a firearm, you would have to get your firearms from Chucky Schumer's body guards. Just think, no thirty day waiting period.
Iraq - Tet Connection article.
There is hope though:
When Tet happened in 1968, it is true, the media and Cronkite went anti-war.
But Nixon stayed in there with the "Vietnamization strategy" for 4 years, and effectively brought the North Vietnamese to heel. It was only the fall of Nixon and the 1974 elections that brought us to the point of abandoning South Vietnam.
In Iraq we have had the "Tet" offensive since February, when the Golden Mosque bombing dealt a blow to Sunni Shiite comity and the death squads and Mahdi army got active.
The insurgency at the time was getting squeezed and Iraqi army training was finally starting to pay off.
From February to October, the Iraqi sectarian violence has been the driver of instability. Shiite armed groups have taken things into their own hands and the Sunni response has been to retreat to sectarianism and support of further insurgent violence. The only way to keep a clamp on it was to bring in US forces heavily in areas; it pacifies the small area, but leaves our forces exposed (hence higher death tolls) and doesnt solve the wider problem. The Iraqi army can do some good, but only so much. And Iraqi police is accused of being in cahoots with the death squads.
Democracy is supposed to be about replacing bullets with ballots, but the forces in Iraq refuse to play by those rules.
The successful way out - which I hope new DoD Secty Gate will pursue - is the same one that Nixon pursued... get Iraqis to defend themselves, with focus on traning and support.
"I don't think Bush, Cheney and Rice are going softly into that good night."
If they ever dare to go soft, give em some fire and brimstone over it ... comments@whitehouse.gov
They are going to hit multiple cities with dirty bombs not nukes. The nukes come in a few years when Iran gets them.
They are going to hit multiple cities with dirty bombs not nukes. The nukes come in a few years when Iran gets them.
It's a couple of years I was writing about. We will not be able to stop the nukes from getting out. Too much fallout from Iraq.
It is so sad to think that a pledge from the American people is only good for 4 years at most.
Best quote I've seen yet. The next two years will be spent restocking provisions and ammo in this household.
The war isn't about Iraq any more than it's about Afganistan. Even if Iraq comes though this, we will not be able to act fast enough to save ourselves.
"Jericho" bump.
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.