War in the Middle East:If it Comes, Get Ready for the Worst

FSO ^ | January 22, 2003 | Joseph D. Douglass, Jr.

[sauropod]

Disagree. The A.N.S.W.E.R crowd was birthed 9/14/01. That's too soon after 9/11 for an organization like that (that puts on protests like last Saturday) to come into being w/o prior knowledge....

Get my drift?

[sauropod]

This looks like Detroit!

[sauropod]

Love this.

[sauropod]

HAH! DU ( snigger).

HOW long have u been around FR?

[sauropod]

Say hello to mommy, you newbie!

[sauropod]

Thanks for being rational. Too few on FR are.

Lock 'n load! 'Pod

[MarMema]

2) the consequences of an Iraqi attack on Israel.

item on kavkaz last December

"A high-ranking Israeli officer threatened that the Zionist regime would launch nuclear attack on Islamic holy sites in the Middle East, an Israeli newspaper said Sunday.In case Israel was attacked by states or groups, the Jewish state would respond by dropping nuclear bombs on Islamic cities such as Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and Qom in Iran. The Haaretz newspaper quoted an unidentified high-ranking officer as saying."

[Stew Padasso]

If I didn't have kids I would gladly go over there and wipe some people out.

[Deb]

Yes, I get your drift. But when did they first have the nerve to make a public statement? Not till the 9/11 images faded and the flags came down. Cowards.

Since they're all the same people who show up for every "demonstration" (and vote Democrat) they probably have a list of names ready to go.

MOVE ON was part of the Clinton support complex founded by Harold Ickes and headed by Ann Lewis. They already had the stationary and web site, so why not just go from being pro-Clinton-anti-Republican to being pro-Saddam-anti-American?

[sauropod]

They inundated DC 9/29/01. Bastards.

[timestax]

bump

[marron]

The writer attempts to make the case against an attack on Iraq, but almost all of his strongest point undercut his purpose.

First, he warns that an invasion may be dangerous, as Saddam may use the very weapons, bio and chemical, that he denies having. This presents an obvious Catch 22; we can't invade to separate Saddam from his WMD because he doesn't have any; and anyway, if we invade, he may turn them on us.

Second, he warns that an invasion will trigger attacks by terrorist organizations directly on our homeland. Ignoring for a moment the fact that such attacks have already occurred, the fact that the first World Trade Center attack included Iraqi operatives, and the second one very possibly as well. Opponents of the invasion have been denying any relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They have further derided the nexus between the various terror groups, and Iraq, and between Iraq and the other so-called "Axis of Evil" regimes Iran and North Korea. The author, though, takes the opposite tack, admitting a direct relationship between these, and going further, pointing out that this terror family includes other regimes as well, Cuba particularly, and also non-state-organized-crime syndicates.

So, his point is that if we attack the Axis of Evil, terrorist attacks will be unleashed upon us. Thus conceding the logic of Bush's determination to unseat Saddam.

He points out that there are other regimes that deserve to be on our hit list; he assumes that since they have not yet been explicitly targeted that we do not have them on our secret list, the one in our breast pocket.

He warns that if we invade Iraq, we will be creating even more enemies. But our enemies have begun to gather in the face of our weakness. He admits this, in a round about way, admitting that our problems began with the stripping away of FBI power, and the undercutting of the CIA. He points out that we have repeatedly backed away from confrontation with the regimes most dangerous to us. So, he sees the problem, but cannot bring himself to take the logical steps to reverse course.

The problem is that we have not been serious about confronting our enemies. How do you correct that? By confronting them. So the real axis of evil is bigger than just three countries? Fine. Lets pick one and take him down. Then lets pick another one. Terrorists may attack us in reprisal? Thats the point. As he says, almost all terrorism is state sponsored. So lets pick a state, and defeat it. You prefer a different one first? Be patient, we will get to them all in time. The key to the problem is to stop running from confrontation. Stop backing down. Backing down is how we got in this predicament, and how we get out of it is to seize hold of one of our attackers and deliver a sharp slap. Then reach for another one. Make it painful to attack us. Make it cheaper to choose someone else, or better yet, find another line of work.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

So, you noticed that too, eh?

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

The writer attempts to make the case against an attack on Iraq, but almost all of his strongest point undercut his purpose.

Indeed. He describes all sorts of boogeymen hiding in the closet, growing stronger by the year, trying to subvert the US and the free world with their growing influence, then shifts tack to opine that if we do anything about it, we'll get hurt but good.

He ends up making the case that we have to go on the offensive, now. Everything you wrote is exactly true.

[sneakypete]

The usual haters of our Republic are just emboldened because the real Americans are at work.

If there is anybody who hates and seeks to destroy our Republic,it is Bubba Bush. He IS the enemy,not the savior some blind people worship.

[Deb]

Oh, please...

[Ancesthntr]

While I don't agree, let's say that Douglass is right: the enemy is just waiting for us to hit Iraq, and then it is over for us - we'll be hit hard from every direction. Despite that, he is 100% wrong that we shouldn't hit Iraq.

The countries and groups that would go after us in that situation, which want us destroyed or at least "put in our place," will hit us someday ANYWAY. 9/11 should've proven that to all concerned. Given that fact, we should do what we've started to do - go on the offensive. No war was ever won by playing defense, but letting the other guy come to you and fight on your territory. Only offensive operations, the goal of which is to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, have any hope of success.

Toward that end, we SHOULD attack Iraq. This will reduce the money, equipment, training facilities, intelligence and moral of terrorists worldwide. The knowledge that 9/11 has "awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" will DETER further attacks supported by states, who will know that they will be next on the $hit list if we can trace anything to them. After Iraq, go for Iran. Israel can take on Syria if they don't fall in line and stop supporting terrorism worldwide. After that, we can take on these countries as they come.

In a way, I almost hope that he's right. No, I don't wish to see our nation attacked, or to have thousands or more innocents dead (whether here by terrorist acts or overseas from collateral damage). But the fact is that the US does have enemies. If action in Iraq can flush all of them out into the open, well, then we know what to do. Then we'll really know who's on our side and who (France) doesn't give a rat's posterior about us (and it will be good to put this into our pocket for later). If we are to face a gigantic war against nations across the globe that don't accept our existence, then let us begin it by knocking their side down a peg or two. If we flush out all of these nations, then we can begin to do that which we should have already done: closing the borders to immigration from enemy nations, tossing out illegals, improving our overseas intelligence and covert operations capabilities without restriction, and massively rearming.

Maybe Douglass and the nations opposed to us should interview lots of old German and Japanese men (those few that are left, that is). They should ask them what it is like to take on a pi$$ed-off USA. And then they should consider that we are, relative to the rest of the world, vastly richer and more powerful than we were in 1941. And, having done it before, we don't have to reinvent methods for taking apart hostile nations.

[RightWhale]

You might be misreading some posts.

[hellinahandcart]

I just finished reading your posts for January.

You're not quite "all there", are you?

[saminfl]

What kind of "cheap decoy" would fool a GPS guided weapon?