But, it is better that they are fighting and dying over there than over here
While our borders remain porous. Of 12 million or more illegals, how many could actually be terrorists? Could they be using Iraq as a diversionary tactic and a psycjological propaganda tool (defeating our will to fight), while they are slipping in by the thousands through our unsecured borders?
What do you call multiple suicide bomb attacks?
Entefada is not connected to what is going on in Iraq. Outwardly maybe, but the cause of entefada are unrelated to Iraq. The only relationship Iraq had to Palestinian terrorists is giving money and material assistance to relatives of suicide bombers (they call them "martyrs"). Other Islamic countries and organizations are doing the same thing, including Saudi Arabia. I don't see us threatening the Saudis. Let's be consistent.
The mood might be the same right now, but at least we have the "benefit" of the Vietnam experience today. Americans hate losing now more than ever
The benefit of any experience is if you remember it. Most Americans don't remember it, or if they do it's a fuzzy memory. Americans hates losing then just as much, which is exactly why we held out against better, concerned more with saving face than lives.
But we are up and against a much more formidable enemy today. Vietnam was an isolated area, including Cambodia and Laos. Muslims are scattered all over the world, a diffuse army of probably 100 million waiting for an opportunity to strike. You can't bomb them, you can't corner them...and they are probably pouring across our borders carrying knowledge, pieces of weapons and chemical/biological warfare and we wouldn't know it because we are too concerned with political correctness vis-a-vis illegal immigrants.
It's like someone watching the front door for thieves while they are robbing your blind from the back yard entrance.
Well, if we quit now, that country would be Iraq. Iran would move right in along side Al Qaida and they would rule together. IOW, by surrendering now we will just have to go back later and start all over again, being forced to kill many many more civilians
One thing they don't have is global reach. very few countries have, in fact, only one does, the US. Countries like Iran can affect neighboring countries, but for them to seriously confront us is out of the question. We can actually reduce Iran to a rubble and turn it into stone age without even having to fly over their territory. We could destroy their bridges, factories, oils wells, roads, railways, electrical grids, crops, waterways, institutions, etc. with nothing but guided missiles.
Ours is to make sure there are none of these goons in our backyard and none can come in. For that to happen we must change our way of thinking. Which we are not prepared to do yet. Once they realized they can do nothing to us without getting clobbered for every attempt, they would stop.
The grave mistake in Vietnam was the fact that we were there. We should have provided every logistical support for the regime of South Vietnam without ground troops (which ended fighting instead of the S. Vietnamese army which was as useless as the present Iraqi one is). We should have obliterated N. Vietnamese facilities and forests and water ways and roads and factories, etc. until they stopped.
This is not Nazi Germany, the last country defeated in a classic war. (Japan was won by overwhelming force; all subsequent wars were won or lost by overwhelming force or lack of it)
We don't need to trust them, we'll see what they deliver
Every time we let them close, they learn more about us, our plans and positions. That is the first mistake. When they turn around they use that knowledge to make friend with the other side, and hurt us. We are surrounded by Muslims in Iraq, FK. They hate Christians.
If Clinton had pulled out a pistol and shot dead a poor, elderly, disabled, gay, black woman on live global television, the Dems would have voted to acquit, saying that either the tape was doctored or that it was a Clinton double, or that it didn't matter because he was such a great president
Yup, that's the Rats for you.
CIA said "Slam Dunk". That is indisputable.
CIA either lied or was dead wrong. Take your pick.
If Israel followed every UN resolution they would all be dead today.
That's a conjecture.
The majority of members hate Israel and would be just fine if they were exterminated.
The Israelis are not known for good diplomatic skills. That has worked in their favor more than the other way around.
But the fact of the matter is that about 20-25%of Israel's population is Arab and growing much faster than the Jewish population. It is a mathematical certainty, unless something drastically changes this trend, that Arabs will be over 50% of the population in a matter of decades, and eventually will become the absolute majority in Israel itself.
So, time is working against the Jews there. Barring any population cleansing modalities, which have already been proposed (which smacks of the Nazi tactics applied to the Jews, whit irony!), Israel will disappear as a Jewish state by demographics and not warfare. the date can even be predicted.
It is trherefore in the best interest of Israel's Jewish population to seek a peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbors and to defy American-imposed views on ethnic minorities as inapplicable in most parts of the world, because some cultures cannot mix and be safe from extinction.
So, some sort of a Jewish-only state will have to be created that will be acceptable to both sides. Violence and wars will not solve the problem of our Israeli friends, and will not solve our problem that is a direct result of it.
Israeli military has gas masks but not a great number of civilians
Israelis have issued gas masks to civilian population s well.
(sorry for any spelling errors, this is in a rush, so apologies...)
Likewise my friend. :)
While our borders remain porous. Of 12 million or more illegals, how many could actually be terrorists? Could they be using Iraq as a diversionary tactic and a psycjological propaganda tool (defeating our will to fight), while they are slipping in by the thousands through our unsecured borders?
What can I say? It sure doesn't seem like the same person could hold both of Bush's policies on the border and Iraq, but yet it's true. So you're right that there could be any number of terrorists here right now. But I still think that the correct policy is to fight them over there, even though Bush is blowing it on the border. One of his policies certainly needs to change in order to match the other.
Entefada is not connected to what is going on in Iraq. Outwardly maybe, but the cause of entefada are unrelated to Iraq. The only relationship Iraq had to Palestinian terrorists is giving money and material assistance to relatives of suicide bombers (they call them "martyrs").
I see what you're saying, and I don't think entefada (intifada?) is working "together" with the insurgents. However, they do have extremely compatible goals. If entefada wins by defeating the Jews, then the insurgents all cheer and vice versa. ALL of them are very happy when Jews and Americans die. I will never forget the video of Palestinians dancing in the streets after hearing of 9/11. Arafat had a heart attack I'll bet. I fell off my chair laughing when I heard that he was donating blood to help the 9/11 victims. :)
It's like someone watching the front door for thieves while they are robbing your blind from the back yard entrance.
Yes, your assessment is right. If a southern border crosser(s) does launch a successful attack, Bush will rightfully bear the blame.
One thing they don't have is global reach. very few countries have, in fact, only one does, the US. Countries like Iran can affect neighboring countries, but for them to seriously confront us is out of the question. We can actually reduce Iran to a rubble and turn it into stone age without even having to fly over their territory. We could destroy their bridges, factories, oils wells, roads, railways, electrical grids, crops, waterways, institutions, etc. with nothing but guided missiles.
My understanding is that Russia still has full ICBM capability and I read that they have tested new road-mobile ICBMs in 2005 and 2006. Besides that, I can't prove but fully believe that Clinton gave (sold) critical guidance systems technology to the Chinese during his administration, and that they will have full ICBM capability if they don't already have it. If the Chinese have it, then North Korea can't be far behind. When that happens, any American hating tin-pot dictator with a fat wallet will have it. I don't think this is necessarily an imminent problem today, but it is inevitable that the crazies will one day have deliverable nukes. While our Patriot missiles performed reasonably well, I'm not aware that we could today repel a mass strike defensively.
Be that as it may, today's imminent problem is the smuggling in of even a dirty bomb or other WMDs, even across the southern border as you stated. That IS global reach. If a device is detonated, killing say, 100,000 people, who are we going to bomb? That's what worries me. No country would ever claim "credit". Only invisible terrorists would. I don't know if we could reasonably determine a country of origin from the blast zone or not. Even if we could, they would just claim it was stolen. No liberal president would ever retaliate based on best evidence. In this grim scenario, this leaves us as sitting ducks multiple times.
Once they realized they can do nothing to us without getting clobbered for every attempt, they would stop.
We'd have to seal the northern border too, and I don't see that possibly happening any time soon, barring a catastrophe.
This is not Nazi Germany, the last country defeated in a classic war. (Japan was won by overwhelming force; all subsequent wars were won or lost by overwhelming force or lack of it)
I've always thought of the Korean War as sort of a tie. How do you see it? And I agree with what you're saying. Germany was the last enemy we defeated in which both sides were comparable, and both fought with the sole purpose of winning. I've seen so many theories on why we did not fight to win in Vietnam I don't know what to believe about it.
Every time we let them close, they learn more about us, our plans and positions. That is the first mistake. When they turn around they use that knowledge to make friend with the other side, and hurt us. We are surrounded by Muslims in Iraq, FK. They hate Christians.
Clearly a significant number of them do. I suppose their choice will be to tolerate Christians for several years and live free, or push us out and live in enslavement forever. That is probably a hard choice for many.
FK: "If Israel followed every UN resolution they would all be dead today."
That's a conjecture.
Yes, it is only my opinion. I just try to imagine all other things being equal and the US and UK not being members of the UN. Given how corrupt I believe the UN to be, I don't see Israel surviving.
It is a mathematical certainty, unless something drastically changes this trend, that Arabs will be over 50% of the population in a matter of decades, and eventually will become the absolute majority in Israel itself.
As to these Arabs being Muslim, it appears that Europe awaits a similar fate. I suppose that we are comparatively lucky in that we are going to be taken over by Hispanics. :) I think they have already passed African-Americans in terms of total numbers in our country.
It is therefore in the best interest of Israel's Jewish population to seek a peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbors and to defy American-imposed views on ethnic minorities as inapplicable in most parts of the world, because some cultures cannot mix and be safe from extinction.
I agree with you that some sort of two state solution is probably in the Jewish long term interest. I've always been kind of a Netanyahu fan, and I know he hates it, but if what you're saying pans out, then it might be a reasonable way to go.