Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 321 To 330 Of 397 Comments
"TERROR IN THE SKIES" A FEINT?
The misdirection the terrorists are using is a classic strategy of Communists. The chief allies of Iran and Syria who are now the chief Islamic terrorists states are Russia and China who are leading Communist states. Without the support of Russia and China Iran would be much easier to contain. The Islamic terrorists are playing from the Communist play book.
GawainsGhost
I have had the same thoughts as you. I have wondered how long Americans will be willing to continue being persecuted before collective rage sets in and the gloves finally come off. Americans along with Israelis are to the early 21st century what the Jews were to Nazi Germany. This war is far bigger than simply the US versus Islamic terrorists. The major supporters of the Islamic terrorist supporting states are the leading Communist states of Russia and China. The enemy is an alliance of Communists and Islamic extremists.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 4.09.2006 @ 17:31
Andy
Thank you for your service to our country in the armed forces. I think you are largely right that we are getting pummeled in the propaganda war and that screw ups like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo don't help us. I think we need to do a better job at getting our side to the story out. In other words, we need to do a better job at countering the disinformation campaign being conducted against us by the enemy.
In many countries the state controls the press so any inforamtion contrary to the govnernment's position will either not be reported or it will be down played. The US certainly does not want to control the press in Iraq or other Arab contries. In a hostile environment, it will be very difficult to counter the enemy's disinformation campaign but we will need to do a better job. When we make errors, such as Gitmo or Abu Ghraib it makes the job of the enemy easier. Since we can't control the press in Arab countries, we will need to be as close to perfect as is humanly possible. This will make their disinformation campaigns much easier to counter.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 2.09.2006 @ 22:24
Rick
Excellent post on this. While it is true that the US treats its prisoners better than most countries do and it is true that the US treats its prisoners more humanely and with more rights than our enemies afford their prisoners, we do not compare ourselves to most countries or to our enemies. We expect the US to behave better than we expect our enemies to behave.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 2.09.2006 @ 22:01
Julie
We clearly messed up significant parts of the post war occupation. You are also right about the ground forces. It will take some time to get them built up to where they need to be. Even if they are not to be used for Iraq, they will likely be needed elsewhere. The Air Force and the Navy seem to be okay but they can only do so much. If we make the commitment to the ground forces, we should still be able to achieve an allied and democratic Iraq but as is the theme of Rick's post, if we are unwilling to make the commitment, then we should pull out now.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 17:35
Mark
I agree. Saddam's active support of terrorism has to be included in any objective analysis. Even the Clinton Administration talked extensively about this. By not including this in the analysis, the msm does the Aemrican people a disservice.
I'm not so sure we had to invade Iraq when we did or that we should have. The decision was made. It is to late to undo it. I would at least like to see us devote the necessary resources to give us a chance to achieve an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq. Whether or not Iraq ends up as a democracy will ultimately be up to the Iraqis, however, an allied and stable Iraq is something we can achieve, if we will make the commitment.
Ultimately we should be a defender of liberty everywhere but we can only guarantee our own. The additional commitment to Iraq should be done in a manner consistent with American national security.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 17:30
Mark
I think you are right about the Iraq/AQ connection. The question is not was there a threat. The question was the magnitude and did it justify invasion. I agree with you on more troops. This would help us break the current stalemate.
Additional commitments should be done consistent with Aemrican national security interests. The biggest national security threats are posed by Russia, China, and Iran. We must be certain to not lose sight of that.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 12:38
Rick
I would prefer to overthrow the mullahs from within, should that become necessary. Another option is to get Russia and China to stop supporting them. This should make them easier to neutralize.
If we plan on overthowing the mullahs, unless I'm missing something, we are going to need a much larger army. Also, it would be helpful to have Iraq for a base. Perhaps another place in the region could be used for a base. I'm concerned that Iraq distracts us from dealing with Iran or the much bigger threats posed by Russia and China. As I see it, if quiting the mission in Iraq will help us to focus more on Russia, China, and Iran then we should abandon Iraq. Otehr wise I think we should try to commit more resources to Iraq.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 11:20
Drewsmom
I agree with you. We can't stay forever. If we don't make our stand in Iraq it will have to be elseshere. As I see it there may be three good reasons to withdraw now. That is if withdrawing from Iraq will help us to do one or more of the following better: 1.)Russia and China are the greatest threats to Aemrican security. These two countries are the primary supporters of Iran and Syria. The "insurgents" and the militias are being suppolied, to a large degree, by Iran and Syria. If we can focus our efforts on getting then to withdraw support for Iran and Syria this would help quell the insurgency. 2.)After the killing of Al Zarqawi, we were close to an agreement between Shia and Sunni, however, the Iranians undermined it. A greater focus needs to be given to Iran. So far this is costing Iran very little. Changing the Iranian regime will help to quell the insurgency in Iraq, as well eliminate a major terrorist threat. Preferably the regime could be overthrown from within.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 09:15
Richard
The Shia militias are backed up by Iran and the Sunni insurgents are made up of many former regime elements. It was the former regime elements, who were once very close to achieving Saddam's stated goal of regional hegemony. this was after the invasion of Kuwait. Niether Iran nor the former regime elements should be allowed to gain control over Iraq. This is precisely what would probably happen if we were to leave to soon. If this happens the enemy is far stronger than it was before. Given the allies that the former regime elements have and the Iranian proxies have, they are fully capable of attacking the US homeland. This would likely be through terrorist proxies. They in concert with their terrorists proxies are fully capable of winning. I see nothing alarmist and insane about focusing on a legitmate threat. What I do find insane is the tendency of both Republicans and Democrats to underestimate American power.
I think the best way to monitor, contain, frighten, and isolate them would be to commit more troops. This would give us a better opportunity to get security under control. If we can do this, we can probably get an ally from this. The reasons we lost Vietnam are several fold. We did not secure its borders. Also, we betrayed our South Vietnam ally when we cut funding. In addition, we lacked the will to see it through to completeion. At one time one of the generals asked for more troops, but they were not forth coming.
After commiting more troops to Iraq, if this does not work, then we should try something else. All of our options have not been exausted yet.
I agree that we made a mistake and did not capitalize when Saddam's statues were falling. According to polls I've seen, the most important things to Iraqis seem to be infrastructre development and security. If we can establish these things, then we should get a reliable ally from this. To this end, the appropiate course correction seems to be a greater commitment. If it does not work out, at some point we will have to leave. I don't think we have done all we can yet.
In the final analysis, the greatest threats to American security are Russia and China, not Islamic extremists. Russia and China are the primary backers of the Islamic extremists states. This is probably no accident. Diplomatic efferts should be directed at Russia and China to get them to stop supporting Iran and others. If we can do this, the Islamic extremists threat becomes much easier to neutralize.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.08.2006 @ 08:59
tubino
According to the polls the top priorities to Iraqis seem to be security and infrastructure development. Having more boots on the ground would give us more abiltiy to tackle the insurgency and the Al Sadr militia. In the short run, it will probably create more problems, especially for the addtional security personnel. If the insurgents are focused on the additional troops, this would take some of the pressure off of the civilians. We've never had enough troops commited to the situation. In order to give liberty a chance and to get a valuable ally from this, we should attempt to insert more troops. The additional troops will help us with security. This should help us to get better intellegence, as the local populace will be more secure to work with us. Having additional security personnel would likely choke the life out of the insurgency. In a lawless situation, a city commits more police officers to the situation until the situation is gotten under control. The same thing should work here. We should try and, if it fails then try something else. Perhaps it is police officers instead of military personnel that are needed. In any event, more boots on the ground would likely help the long run situation.
You are correct to point out that we could over extend our troops. This is why we need a larger military. I've been pushing for this for a long time. Air support would probably be helpful to ensure that the supply lines are secure. There is no question that it will be difficult. I hate this too. Due to a number of grievous errors, on the part of this administraion, a very difficult situation has been made even more difficult than it probably needed to be. Also, some of the rhetoric has been very unhelpful. Clearly changes need to be made at the very top. Some people will need to be relieved of their duties.
The goal in Iraq is an allied, stable, and democratic allied Iraq. If we can achieve, at least a stable and allied Iraq this would likely be enough. If the mission fails it will be a disaster but the results are not in yet. So far we have not even begun to do all we can. This will require sacrifices on the part of the American people. If the people who fought WWII were as reluctant to make sacrifices as some people today apparently are, we would have likely be ruled by Nazis now. We need true leadership who will explain the stakes to the Aemrican people, in no undertain terms. If the President can't do this, he needs to make room for someone who will.
If we are unable to salvage the situation, at some point we wil have to cut our losses, regroup, and get ready for the next round that the terrorists will force on us. There is one good reason that I know of to withdraw from Iraq right now. If conceding Iraq to the terrorists will somehow help us to focus on Iran. If we can get Iran to stop interfering, this should help to quell the insurgency within Iraq.
"Harry Truman's Ghost" sums up the situation perfectly. Make our stand now in Iraq or fight them later when they are far stronger. Also, we will need a military force structure that will provide some kind of deterent against Iran and Syria. A premature withdrawl from Iraq will be correctly viewed by the terrorists as a defeat for America. Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon did not help Israel any. If we withdrew prematurely, we would likely face a similar situation to the situation Israel faces.
Rick's post nails this. We will either need to make the commitmnet necessary to get this done or we need to get out. I say make the commitment now. It will probably only get harder later.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 21.08.2006 @ 23:48
