Today is Sunday
Jul 06, 2008
|
|
 Add Reply |
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Zach Cheney
Posts:324
 |
| 02/06/2007 7:56 AM |
 Quote
 Reply
 Alert
|
| What are your thoughts on all of the controversey surrounding the Iraqi War debate between members of the Senate and the House? Do you think we will see some sort of compromise between Democrats and Republicans? |
|
|
|
aam31 (guest)
|
| 03/10/2007 5:30 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| I consider it very vital that we win the objective in Iraq to be a free democratic country to govern itself without muslim terroist interference. Iraq is very important to the security of our country by virtue of all the oil it produces for our nation to purchase. If the muslim terroists ever gain control of Iraq our country will be in serious problems. The way these left wing democrats in our country are acting I am sure the terrorists are so very gratifide like the communists were in Vietnam when the likes of Jane Fonda, Senator Kerry, Joan Biaz, etc were aiding their will to keep fighting and defeat our nation. God bless President Bush. I'm 100% behind him in our efforts in Iraq. I fought in the Korean War and was very proud I did. We had an average of 50 killed every day and we were behind our country's president with pride. Must of the men in Korea were drafted like I was and proud of it. Remember, all the men in Iraq joined the military and I'm sure they are proud like we were to be able to serve our country. Just a former proud Korean War combat veteran. |
|
|
|
sirius (guest)
|
| 03/10/2007 10:09 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
I do not have anyone in the military and have not been in the military, but it seems clear to me that we need to disrupt the training ground of terrorists. What S. Hussein had when is immaterial.
I support President Bush and history will prove him a courageous albeit not articulate man. |
|
|
|
gneubeck@bellsouth.net (guest)
|
| 08/14/2007 9:50 PM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| Our President, Standing tall in the face of extreme opposition on his Iraq policy- It is truly sad that so many of our citizens cannot accept the world as it is; but rather, prefer to fantasize a world in the image of their preferences: I.e. a world where the sheer momentum of good will always triumph over evil; a world where if we simply show respect and goodwill towards our opponents, they will be compelled to respond in kind; a world where we should not defend our legitimate national interests for fear of antagonizing our declared adversaries.
History is replete with the Hitlers and their enabling Chamberlains who have repeatedly illustrated the folly of such naiveté; but yet, some still profess that the only legitimate response to the severing of an extended hand-of-friendship is to offer the other hand.
As a case in point, 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration’s feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton’s inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden’s planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives.
By contrast, some of us believe that history has convincibly and repeatedly validated the theory that in this less-than-perfect world, that Peace can only be achieved Thru Strength. Not a strength that imposes its will on others who represent no threat to our chosen way of life; but rather, a strength sufficient to deter, and if necessary, to destroy any overt aggression that arises in opposition to our freely chosen culture.
We might well remember that: “The absence of Freedom in the absence of War is not Peace; but rather, a submissive forfeiture of our heritage.
Regarding the issue of Iraq, there are those who proclaim that despite: *the earlier de-facto utilization of chemical agents against the Kurds, the Iranians, and even their own citizens; *the later discovery of 1.7 tons of enriched uranium in Iraq; *the seizure of 50 tons of castor beans, the pre-cursor to the poison ricin; *the discovery of numerous other pre-cursor chemicals that simply require combination to produce dangerous toxins, which is the very nature of modern day binary weapons; *the inability of UN Inspectors to account for previously confirmed quantities of anthrax, VX, mustard gas pre-cursors, sarin, and cultures for biological agents; *the existence of world class scientific institutes, proliferated throughout Iraq, conducting research in nuclear, chemical and biological disciplines with the capacity to quickly reconstitute full scale WMD programs once unfettered by UN inspectors, inspectors who had been allowed re-entry to Iraq only because Coalition Forces were massed on Iraq‘s Southern border- and - would have been summarily evicted once those forces had been re-deployed, ((it is important to note that with the approach of the oppressive summer heat of the Iraqi desert, and the intolerable burden of combat in chem/bio gear, the border encampment of Coalition forces could not have long been sustained. Circumstances conveniently discounted by the “give the inspectors more time” argument.)) - sobering facts given our shock at finding after the 1st Gulf War how perilously close Saddam had progressed in his determined quest to develop nuclear weapons; *the detection of massive truck convoys transporting their contents to Syria just prior to the invasion ( recalling that a single medium sized U-Haul vehicle could contain sufficient weaponized anthrax to kill the entire world’s population 3X over, and keeping in mind that Mohammed Atta and his fellow fanatics had initially attempted to gain access to and training in crop-duster aircraft.); *the discovery of stores of artillery shells specifically designed for filling with chemical agents; *the discovery of high concentrations of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas pre-cursor, that had been dumped into the Euphrates river; etc. etc. incredibly fails to suggest to our pacifist friends that IRAQ was unquestionably a WMD threat!
With regards Iraq’s affiliation with terrorist elements: we are asked to accept that al-Qaida, with recognized terrorist affiliates in more than 60 Nations, had no discernible presence in a hub of world terrorism, I.e. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq! For years, Saddam gave sanctuary in Baghdad to both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, who prior to the emergence of bin Laden, were two of the world’s most notorious terrorist operatives. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was an al-Qaida affiliate in Afghanistan where he commanded a terrorist training camp in the production and deployment of chemical agents, was also provided sanctuary in Baghdad in 2002, along with a cadre of his lieutenants; and, extended medical treatment was given to Zarqawi for injuries that he had received in a U.S. air-strike against his base camp. Zarqawi then transitioned to Northern Iraq and affiliated with the Ansar al-Islam extremists, a terrorist organization that Hussein had permitted to operate under the supervision of a senior Iraqi intelligence agent. A group that, with Iraqi compliance, had constructed an extensive underground chemical weapons facility. By claiming that he had no control over his Northern sector, Hussein created plausible deniability with willing dupes in the event poisonous toxins, such as the ricin attacks in Europe, were traced back to the al-Islam enclave. Of course, we all know that Saddam gassed the Kurds who occupied the same sector when they deviated from his agenda. Further, overhead reconnaissance had verified multiple terrorist training sites within the interior of Iraq, to include an aircraft hi-jacking training facility. As well, Hussein openly funded Palestian homicide bombers who carried out attacks against Israel thru their Hamas and Hezbola initiators; and, dispersed Iraqi agents throughout the world who have been documented to have had numerous contacts with al-Qaida operatives.. Recall that it was Saddam who blatantly attempted to assassinate the 1st President Bush. Can there be any doubt that Saddam would have surreptitiously provided dangerous toxins to disparate terrorist organizations who were in pursuit of his common objectives!
Bill Clinton, in 1998, summarized the Iraqi threat to the world community as follows: “Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors presents a threat to the entire world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. Without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years. Hussein is a threat to his people and to the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.”
But as history has recorded, Clinton was exceedingly long on platitudes and woefully short on substance; and, left the burden of the heavy lifting to a thankfully more principled successor.
Unfortunately, with the constant drumbeat of defeatist criticism from the “cut and run” crowd from the left, criticism that has been dramatically amplified by sycophants of a compliant news media, the President’s job approval poll numbers in our war against terrorism have been dramatically depressed. Circumstances which have prompted leftist politicians who, originally, oft spoke boldly and defiantly of the necessity to disarm Saddam when public opinion polls strongly favored such action, but are now seeking every opportunity to disavow their previous statements declaring a robust support for the war; and, to now proclaim that they were “brainwashed” into compliance by faulty intelligence. Despicable commentary that is destructive to the morale of our troops engaged in deadly combat with a determined enemy. An enemy that, despite staggering losses inflicted on them by Coalition forces, derives encouragement and sustainability from the dissension fomented by the American left. Precisely the same observation documented by the North Vietnamese Commander, General Giap, subsequent to the Vietnam conflict. In a heartbreaking commentary, here’s how a young Marine from “Camp Blue Diamond” in Ramadi, Iraq expressed his frustration over the demoralizing debate at home: “They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see things like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media.”
It’s incredible how quick the left is to hoist the “white flag” when confronted with adversity. Sound familiar? How far are they willing to retreat from those who have a visceral hatred for our Western culture before we’re finally cornered? How many more 9/11s is the Left prepared to endure before they would be willing to stand and fight? Surely members of “The Greatest Generation” who demanded total victory over the Fascists of WW II, must hang their heads in shame when they witness the American Left of today cowering before the modern day threat of Islamofacism!
As you reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation, consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, before they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy.
Greg Neubeck
133 N Bay Ct.
Lynn Haven, Fl 32444
Phone: (850)265-2401 ((gneubeck@bellsouth.net))
|
|
|
|
kid (guest)
|
| 09/06/2007 5:26 AM |
Quote
Reply
Alert
|
| what good is sending more troups into iraq when we are just away to hand the country over to the iraqi government isn't that a little intimidating |
|
|
|
|
| Add Reply |
|
|
|
Quick Reply |
 |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.5
|
|
|