1 posted on
09/28/2001 8:43:50 PM PDT by
Clive
To: Clive
There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now, before we get lost in the fog of virtual war. Johnson's is a voice of reason, soon to be drowned out by the cowering of the Buchananites and antiwar.com.
2 posted on
09/28/2001 8:53:23 PM PDT by
sinkspur
To: Clive
Great post. Sounds right to me. But then, I'm 65 and don't have to do the fighting.
To: Clive
I am still seriously doubting that Bush is going to do much beyond firing a few bullets and lobing a few cruise missiles. The administration seems fearful of overthrowing the Taliban, let alone Hussein.
There is always hope, though. What Johnson forgets is that America has a much different mentality than Britain. Both countries have always wanted peace. The difference is that we Americans don't care how many people we have to kill to get it.
To: Clive
Countries have been identified by the USA. It will seek to isolate a few countries at a time, through military-political-economic means and then go after them one by one. At some point in time, this tactic will cease to work, however, it is this author's hope that it will succeed in allowing Israel and the US/North America to destroy the major pockets of terrorism and the catalyst these areas bring to the world. Once these vocal/visual pockets of terrorism are isolated and muted, the rest of the evil will have to be faced.
My guess is that the terrorist network has its beginnings in Russia, a new sort of army to confront the West and her superior military/economic/political structure. At some point, it may be necessary to literally destroy numerous nations.
If Bush gives in, then Capitalism is dead, and a way of life....
6 posted on
09/28/2001 9:13:08 PM PDT by
Jumper
(jumepr74@planet.nl)
To: Clive
This, in turn, means that America cannot stop once it has overthrown the Taliban. To be sure of success, it has to make a long march through Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Sudan, overthrowing regimes or at least terrifying them into good behaviour. There would be a lot to be said for making these strategic options explicit now, before we get lost in the fog of virtual war.
It seems to me that President Bush did exactly that in his address to Congress and the nation on 9/20/01:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.""Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
9 posted on
09/28/2001 9:18:20 PM PDT by
kayak
To: Clive
Johnson says Britain has been bullied into submission by the IRA. Oh, then can I redraw the map? Is the state of Eire now including Ulster? I think not. "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right". There's lads yet willing to fight for the continued separation of Ulster, milksops in London notwithstanding. Johnson is all too self serving, yet I will concede he has a point. Time will tell. Perhaps I have him wrong. In his way, he may be goading oppinion to NOT let it happen. Let the public be on guard if there is a slinking away from the drastic solutions that lie ahead. A basis for this possible scenario is the disgraceful farce of the trial in Scotland over Lockerbie. I believe, and it is a long shot,two losers were sent as fodder by Libya- big deal. Oh,spouse has on Boxer on T/V, well,now I know why we in England put up with the Defence of the Realm Act during WW2. Can one fight a successful war and let the naysayers have full throat?
To: Clive
The problem with this "logic" is
these terrorists don't want anything - except to kill Americans in large numbers. We are not negotiating anything here. Their offer to us is our complete extinction from the human race. Then they will stop bothering us.
Do you think GWB should take that deal now?
This mass slaughter by suicide bombers is about the fanatic spread of Islam throughout the world using the sword upon all "infidels." The Koran calls for such tactics and these nutballs take it deadly seriously.
If Bush concedes to these people, civilization ends and we have a reversion to the 7th Century AD run by barbarians.
This is a worldwide war between civilization and murdering madmen with a twisted, satanic vision of their religion.
They haven't used nuclear weapons yet but they will as they are working overtime toward that end.
We either win or die. Those are the two options. There is no middle ground and George W. Bush realizes that.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson