Cynical Nation

This is certainly going to be a very long campaign (that initial 25 year period, given on 9/23/01) may well prove far too optimistic, but it's also certain that Iran and Syria are going to be eventual targets and if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ever fall to the more radicalized forces, they too will probably be targeted as well.

The one thing that's very much in our favor is that the rogue states of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria have all decided to fight alone, rather than banding together to create a united front, that would've been much tougher to deal with.

By the end of this struggle either radicalized/"fundamentalist" Islam will cease to exist, or the West, as we now know it will.

yeah check this one out while y'r at it...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191910,00.html

sheesh. what to make of it? I almost can't believe there's anything REALLY called the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers, but there's no telling these days.

It seems like a lot of Americans are either yawning about Iran or are more worried that Bush will be the one that provokes Armageddon.

Mahmoud is such a jerk. gah.

This whole thing boils down to one thing, Does Bush have the stones to finish this crap before 08? He can if he quits trying to win the peace by fighting a sanitary war. War is ugly and you need to be in it to win it. That means take the gloves off.
If the enemy is in a mosque, goodbye mosque, if they are in a crowd, goodbye crowd. there is no innocents in war. you don't want to fight don't be where the fighting is.

Can't say that I disagree there, Robert.

This whole thing boils down to one thing, Does Bush have the stones to finish this crap before 08?

Bush is incompetent in fighting a war. He messed up in Iraq big time. In contrast to Iraq, Iran is a real threat. But by unnecessarily creating the Iraq mess, Bush has made it much more difficult to deal with Iran. The only hope is that in 2006 the democrats will take back both the senate and the congress and exhibit better control on the actions of this reckless administration.

"He messed up in Iraq big time. In contrast to Iraq, Iran is a real threat." (Blue Wind)

A "real threat" based on what, BW?

Their posturing, their talk???

Ahmadinejad is doing and saying exactly what Saddam Hussein did prior to the invasion of Iraq. Well, everything except violating a "last chance" UN Resolution, the way Saddam Hussein violated UN Resolution 1441.

Ironically enough, we have about as much PROOF that Iran has sponsored, harbored and supported Islamo-nazi terrorism, or is stockpiling WMDs as we did with Iraq.

I suppose that's why every Intelligence agency in the world believed what Saddam's own Generals believed, that Iraq had WMDs prior to the invasion, due to Hussein's policy of "detterence through doubt."

Afghanistan was only the first step in what will surely be a very long war. Iraq was a logical and necessary second step. Iran and Syria will certainly follow...and after that there will still most likely be a fair number of others.

Robert's point is the point that most of the retired Generals have made - NONE have insinuated that Iraq was the wrong war, in fact, they've all supported the action against Iraq. What the issue is, is do we have the stomach to fight a real, no holds barred war, and in many quarters in this country, the answer seems to be a definite no.

If we don't, get ready for dhimmitude (pronounced ZI-ME-TUDE) within your own country.

Was going to comment to blue wind there but JMK took care of it, Thanks.

No matter how you take it, Bush is incompetent. Even if we assume that there was a reason to start the Iraq war, he has been unable to win. Iraq is simply a destroyed country and we have lost our credibility with our inability to win. If you really believe that things are "going well in Iraq" you simply refuse to face reality. The generals that have asked for Rumsfeld's resignation know well why they did it. We need a serious admiministration to fight the war on terror and that is not the Bush administration. It will be of outmost importance for the future of the country that democrats take back control of the house and the senate in November.

That is the terrible dilemma we face, Robert, what certainly appears to be decades more of war against a global, fanatical threat (radicalized Islam). It is a war that starts in the Mid-East and probably, as many believe, ends many decades hence in Sub-Saharan Africa among the last remaining bastions of Islamo-nazism in places like Chad, the Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.

The enemy has been engaged against America for at least a decade and a half. We are still not yet fully engaged against them.

Pan-Islamicists openly talk about breeding Europe into a Muslim state by the end of this century and installing Sharia Law throughout that region.

The terrible reality is that "radicalized Islam," with its aggressive, pan-Islamist, expansionist aims, is only slightly more dangerous than "traditional Islam," with its enforced Sharia Law and its system of dhimmitude for all non-Muslims.

In most Muslim countries all non-Muslims must wear insignias so they can be easily identified (that's where Germany's Nazis got that idea) and all non-Muslim shops must be delineated with a similar insignia so that Muslims can easily avoid buying from non-Muslims. Moreover, a Muslim can kill a non-Muslim and only be assessed a fine, at most. All Dhimmis are not equal, a Christian's or Jew's (fellow people of "the Book") life is worth one-fifteenth of a Muslim's, while Buddhists, Hindus, the non-religious and practitioners of other non-recognized religions are valued at one-fiftieth the of a Muslim.

Centuries ago, both Judaism and Christianity both saw only "believers" as "saved" or "chosen" and all others were seen as, little better than cattle, or beasts of burden - they were "damned anyway."

Christianity led the way toward religious liberty, especially among the devout Christians who founded America.

The terrible truth is that at this point America is fighting two terrible enemies - the globalized Islamo-nazi movement and the "enemies within our own gates" - the Euro-Socialists and the American Liberals who compare religious Jews and Christians (Religious Conservatives) with the jihadist Islamicists, such is their hate for traditional American views and values.

BOTH those enemies must be defeated and those ideologies tainted the way both Nazism and Bolshevism have been.

Right now, there seems as little chance of any widespread Reformation within Islam as there is for the Euro-Socialists and American Liberals to see the light and change their ways.

It's a terrible dilemma.

We need a Democratic administration to fight the "War on Terror," BW?

A "war" they refuse to believe even exists!?

The Moore-Franken-Sheehan wing of that Party opposed even the invasion of Afghanistan, not on any grounds that "this was the wrong administration to fight that war," but because they believed and still BELIEVE that it was morally wrong.

Anyone who's opposed the actions of the current administration because they didn't believe it to have any "right" to fight in America's name are simply, rabidly ANTI-American.

This administration is the ONLY one we have and the war against Islamo-nazism and the rogue states that have sponosred, harbored and supported it, must be fought NOW.

Moreover, one of the reasons the current administration didn't allocate the large number of troops the various Generals wanted, was precisely because of the corrosive, undermining effects of a virulently anti-American anti-war movement that was shamefully supported by the Democrats for purely partisan reasons.

The Dems are the worst of all possible options to continue this fight.

JMK - You comments, while well written, are too deceptive to ignore.

First, you generalize Liberals as being in complete unison; this has never been the case.

Second, you make an empty assertion that the Democrats do not believe that the War on Terror exists, when half of them voted to support the war in Iraq.

Third, the overwhelming majority of Democrats believe that the war in Afghanistan is worth while.

Forth, Your statement:
"Anyone who's opposed the actions of the current administration because they didn't believe it to have any "right" to fight in America's name are simply, rabidly ANTI-American."
is actually anti American, not dissent for the war.

Fifth, this administration does not have the intellectual power to win a war in Iraq, let alone on an abstract noun. You don't have to take my word for that, just read recent articles by Angelo M. Codevilla, William F. Buckley Jr, Paul Craig Roberts or Charley Reese - all Conservative intellectuals, all against the War in Iraq.

If you chose to be honest about this and stop hiding you head in the sand, you would see that there is quite a bit of worthy decent, that decent is American, and the this War is an abortion of resources.

Sorry if I got a little lost in the acrimony, but I couldn't leave this one alone.

JMK,
You wrote:
"The terrible truth is that at this point America is fighting two terrible enemies - the globalized Islamo-nazi movement and ..... American Liberals".

Thats the problem with some people in the extreme far right. Instead of focusing on fighting terrorism, they consider their fellow Americans the enemy. Whom does that help? America or our real enemies? That statement was ridiculous and you should retract it.

I think Van made some excellent points and answered your (inappropriate) statements appropriately. Cheers.

Here's where your wrong Van, First, I never generalized at all. NOWHERE in that statement above is ANY generalization. I clearly stated, "The Moore-Franken-Sheehan wing of that Party..." and that is a specific and accurate statement about a specific group of people, who are unfortunately influential within today's Democratic Party.

Yes, that entire wing, the far Left wing of the Democratic Party is all the things I accused them of...and more.

That's probably why no one to date has even challenged one of my assertions with any specific counters, relevant to that group.

I suppose that's also why I've so often heard things like, "Well, Hillary Clinton supports the war in Iraq, so not ALL Democrats oppose the war."

My answer is always the same logical and calmly rational reply, "Did I include Hillary Clinton in the "Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Chomsky wing" of that Party? Of course not! John Kerry, Al Gore, YES....Liberman, the Clinton's, Evan Byah, NO."

The war against Terrorism is not an option, if we can't win it, the result will be Sharia Law within the U.S., and Dhimmitude (pronounced ZI-ME-TUDE) for all non-Muslims within the United States and sooner, rather than later.

Radicalized Islam is a well organized, well financed, global enemy that has been actively at war with America since 1990, some would say since the Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983.

It is NOT an "amorphous" enemy and it is not even a difficult enemy to get a handle on, so long as we adhere to the current policy of waging war on EVERY country that harbors, sponsors or supports that movement in ANY way.

Short of that, the best, or at least the most efficeint route, would be an immediate surrender (seriously)...a pre-emptive suing for peace, on their terms of course. We'd need a couple of interim American adminsitrations to smooth over that transition - to familiarize Americans with Sharia Law (the stoning of gays, adulteress women, etc) and Dhimmitude - we could placate American Christian and Jewish Dhimmis with, "Hey! At least our lives are worth 1/15th that of a Muslims, as fellow 'people of the Book,' while Hindus, Buddhists and the non-religious are valued at only 1/50th that of a Muslim."

THAT, is the ONLY way we get to avoid an arduous, costly and long (perhaps as long as a century) war with the growing forces of radicalized Islam.

There is no chance for a peaceful coexistance, and there's no chance of a "negotiated settlement," because there's nothing in that for THEM, as they're committed to winning at all costs.

For the record, Libertarians, like Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul aren't ANTI-American in their anti-war positions (I've said that and proven that many times over in many venues)...they're simply wrong on that issue, that's all.

But as I said, ANYONE who believes that "this current administration has NO RIGHT to fight in America's name" (which is exactly what I said above) ARE rabidly ANTI-American, because that position is rabidly ANTI-Constitutional, as the U.S. Constitution gives any duly elected Commander-in-Chief the power to wage war "in America's name."

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.

As usual, BW, you're wrong. The Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Chomsky wing (throw in George Soros) of the Democratic Party are supported by less than 10% of the American people and yes those folks AND their supporters are indeed AMERICA-HATERS.

They ARE "the enemy within our gates."

It's been a boom to Republicans that these folks have held so much sway within the Democratic Party. They do terrible harm to the Democrats and that allows the Republicans to do the absolute minimum and still retain control.

THAT'S the shame of the hardcore Left, they've eviscerated the Democratic Party.

Ronald Reagan held the same tax cutting, anti-communist, pro-Capitalist views that JFK did back in 1962.

Reagan later changed Parties because the Democrats abandoned those principles without any reason. When Reagan won in 1980 & 1984, he ran on the very same tax cutting, anti-Communist, pro-Capitalist platform that JFK endorsed back in 1960.

Reagan NEVER MOVED, the Democrats abanodoned HIM, and ALL those "Reagan Democrats," not the reverse.

JMK,
There are a lot of inaccuracies among the things you wrote above. As an example, you wrote regarding the "Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Chomsky wing" of the democratic party:John Kerry, Al Gore, YES....Liberman, the Clinton's, Evan Byah, NO."

Very wrong. John Kerry has repeatedly supported the war in Afganistan and what you wrote is completely inaccurate.

Now, you say that Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Chomsky wing (throw in George Soros) are "AMERICA-HATERS."

I could easily argue that the extreme right are Anti-American and "America haters" because they are trying to limit personal freedoms and privacy in the name of the war on terror. These are American values that the extreme right wing of the Republican party is trying to block. However, I dont say that these people are anti-American. They are simply wrong, but I dont question their patriotism. That's the difference between rational liberals and irrational far right-wing extremists. As I said above, instead of focusing on fighting terrorism, they consider their fellow Americans the enemy. I think it is about time your realize how wrong your statements are and retract this particular one that you said that "American liberals are terrible enemies". It is highly inappropriate.

Again, you're wrong even about John Kerry, who DID support an invasion of iraq back in 1998, when he publically stated that he felt Clinton's bombing campaign wasn't going to be nearly enough.

He switched positions during his run for the WH and the Democrats even had Michael Moore prominently featured during the Democratic Convention in Boston.

The empty rages against the Patriot Act are themselves anti-American, because the patriot Act has not been misused to date.

The targeted round-up of thousands of Muslim and Arabic males here illegally after 9/11 and other Arab and Muslims who'd given (some possibly unknowingly) to various terrorist front groups, was NOT made possible by the Patriot Act.

It was legal and lawful all along.

In fact, the Patriot Act hadn't even been passed when that "round-up" occurred.

The Patriot Act merely gives law enforcement the ability to use the same tools they routinely use against drug dealers (roving wiretaps, no-knock warrants, etc) against terrorists.

Even the recent "NSA wiretapping scandal" had nothing to do with the Patriot Act!

No less than four federal courts and the FISA court have ALREADY ruled that warrantless wiretaps can be used on incoming calls from targeted foreign portals "for the purpose of gathering foreign Intelligence."

The ONLY new wrinkle that's been applied post-9/11 has been that NOW even communications ORGINATING in the U.S. TO suspect foreign portals can be wiretapped without a warrant for the same reason.

I'd think it highly unlikely that the same courts that have already ruled that communications FROM suspect foreign portals INTO the U.S. can be tapped without a warrant, are now going to rule that communications originating WITHIN America TO suspect foreign portals should be treated any differently.

Again, none of that is related to the Patriot Act.

Moore, Sheehan, Soros and other hard Left goons have called the U.S. "the world's biggest terrorist," and compared the current administration to the Third Reich - YES, all of that is blatantly and patently ANTI-American.

BW, I've thought about and come to the conclusion that I must stand by this statement, "The terrible truth is that at this point America is fighting two terrible enemies - the globalized Islamo-nazi movement and the "enemies within our own gates" - the Euro-Socialists and the American Liberals who compare religious Jews and Christians (Religious Conservatives) with the jihadist Islamicists, such is their hate for traditional American views and values.

"BOTH those enemies must be defeated and those ideologies tainted the way both Nazism and Bolshevism have been."

I honestly don't see that statement as at all extreme.

JMK - I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your comments.

I beleive that your thinking about the War on Terror is misguided. If you want to see my point, as it's likely beyond the scope of the thead, you'll find an entry on my site called: Lesson One - Do Not Declare War On An Abstract Noun.

It is an essay written about the War on Terror by a promenant conservative.

Again, sorry that I took a hostile tone with you and thanks for your reply.

JMK - I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your comments.

I beleive that your thinking about the War on Terror is misguided. If you want to see my point, as it's likely beyond the scope of the thead, you'll find an entry on my site called: Lesson One - Do Not Declare War On An Abstract Noun.

It is an essay written about the War on Terror by a promenant conservative.

Again, sorry that I took a hostile tone with you and thanks for your reply.

The Republicans need a scary enemy so they can remove civil liberties and jack up military spending and artificially inflate oil prices. They tried to make China into the new Evil Empire, but that wasn't working, then (thank god!) along came a bunch of bungling "terrorists".

Are these pissant countries really some huge threat? No. Does Bush really care all that much about "protecting" us from them? Obviously not. He still wants open borders with Mexico.

This is 100% about corporate gouging and expanding governmental powers against the general population and in favor of the mega-wealthy. It's about Big Oil and Defense Contractors making billions.

Oooo, Oooo, here comes BIG BAD IRAN, I'm sooooooo scared!

Maybe Republicans really are cowards though, since none of them managed to show up when America was fighting wars in the past.

No worries Van and I WILL definitely check out your essay.

There are many views I respect that are opposed to the current wars, even though I generally ultimately disagree with them.

I greatly respect Pat Buchanan. In fact aside from his views on Gulf War I, the Balkans and the current misnamed "War on Terrorism," (at least he's consistent) there is very little I disagree with him over.

I have no personal issue, nor animus with such folks and still respect their overall views and values.

The problem I have with those who'd call the U.S. "the world's biggest terrorist" and compare the current administration to the Third Reich, is the blatant anti-Americanism those remarks indicate.

I greatly respect Pat Buchanan.

I dont think thats something you should be proud of JMK. The guy is a radical far-right wing extremist out of touch with reality. You are probably among the 0.000000001% of the country that agrees with Buchanan. Sorry, I meant 0.00001%.

"The Republicans need a scary enemy so they can remove civil liberties and jack up military spending and artificially inflate oil prices." (anonymous)

A complately absurd and inspid statement.

First, Republicans didn't "inflate oil prices," the growing demand from India and China, which created an incredible increase in world demand, did that.

China alone, now gulps down more oil than the entire wolrd did just twenty years ago.

Name a single Civil Right of YOURS that's been abridged by the NSA wiretaps, Camp X-Ray, the post-9/11 round-up of mostly illegal alien Arab & Muslim males, or the Patriot Act's allowing foreign Intelligence to share information with domestic law enforcement.

None have been.

The warrantless wiretaps conducted by the NSA are NOT new. That's how American traitor Aldrich Ames was caught during the previous administration's Operation Eschelon, by warrantless intercepts of communications FROM suspect foreign portals to his mainland U.S. phone number, followed up by a warrantless search of his premises, so that he couldn't rtemove evidence prior to the government making its case.

"They tried to make China into the new Evil Empire, but that wasn't working, then (thank god!) along came a bunch of bungling "terrorists". (anonymous)

Another insipid statment, as the current administration never even sought to remove MFN status from the slave labor using, organ harvesting Chinese, you apparently respect so much.

Oh yeah and those "bungling terrorists" didn't bungle 9/11.

"Are these pissant countries really some huge threat?"

As much as these rogue nations harbor, sponsor and support international terrorism, YES, they are a very real and powerful threat.

"Does Bush really care all that much about "protecting" us from them? Obviously not. He still wants open borders with Mexico." (anonymous)

Yet another insipid statement and I have to say that, even though I personally disagree with Bush's immigration policies.

Sadly you've mischaracterized them. To give you the benefit of the doubt, that's probably because you're unaware of them.

It's the far Left that favors an "open borders policy." Bush favors the Senate Bill that seeks to fine companies that hire illegals, set up an orderly "guest worker program" that requires fines and backtaxes from illegals in order for them to erventually gain citizenship.

I want the primary emphasis on securing the borders with walls and armed guards, etc., a secondary emphasis on fining both companies AND individuals who use "undocumented workers" and a tertiary emphasis on some sort of "guest worker program" that doesn't undercut American labor, in other words, still maintains the minimum wage provisions, etc.

Bush is much closer to what I want than what the far Left wants - open borders.

"Maybe Republicans really are cowards though, since none of them managed to show up when America was fighting wars in the past." (anonymous)

It's always difficult to deal with idle speculation, but one indication that that is not the case is the fact that back in 2000, when Florida Dems sought to remove the Military ballots coming in from overseas because they didn't have "appropriate date stamps," the reason for that was that over 80% of those ballots voted Republican. Those FL Dems knew exactly what they were doing...it was a clever move on their part. Unethical, but clever.

Even to this day, the vast majority of Military ballots tend to go Republican.

I don't blame you for not putting your name on those comments. It actually shows some good sense.

I wouldn't put my name to comments like those either.

Pat Buchanan is very much a mainstream figure in America BW.

He's worked for years at CNN (Crossfire, a show that's never been as good without his self-efacing sense of humor and rapier wit) and on the Sunday morning McGloughlin Group among other venues.

Out of the mainstream guys are folks like Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clarke who are thankfully rarely seen or heard on U.S. media outlets.

Clarke and Chomsky are both dyed in the wool America-haters.

Buchanan is a pro-free market guy who seeks a smaller government - a very small social services bureaucracy and an equally small Military bureaucracy.

Most Dems want a LARGE social services bureaucracy and a SMALL Military bureaucracy, while many Republicans want a very SMALL social services bureaucracy and a LARGE Military bureaucracy.

Buchanan's versionof smaller government is far more consistent than either most Democrats and most Republicans.

IRONY ALERT

How did THAT happen?

Suddenly all my info just disappeared and had to be re-set.

Well, I'll repost these comments with my information.

"The Republicans need a scary enemy so they can remove civil liberties and jack up military spending and artificially inflate oil prices." (anonymous)

A complately absurd and inspid statement.

First, Republicans didn't "inflate oil prices," the growing demand from India and China, which created an incredible increase in world demand, did that.

China alone, now gulps down more oil than the entire wolrd did just twenty years ago.

Name a single Civil Right of YOURS that's been abridged by the NSA wiretaps, Camp X-Ray, the post-9/11 round-up of mostly illegal alien Arab & Muslim males, or the Patriot Act's allowing foreign Intelligence to share information with domestic law enforcement.

None have been.

The warrantless wiretaps conducted by the NSA are NOT new. That's how American traitor Aldrich Ames was caught during the previous administration's Operation Eschelon, by warrantless intercepts of communications FROM suspect foreign portals to his mainland U.S. phone number, followed up by a warrantless search of his premises, so that he couldn't rtemove evidence prior to the government making its case.

"They tried to make China into the new Evil Empire, but that wasn't working, then (thank god!) along came a bunch of bungling "terrorists". (anonymous)

Another insipid statment, as the current administration never even sought to remove MFN status from the slave labor using, organ harvesting Chinese, you apparently respect so much.

Oh yeah and those "bungling terrorists" didn't bungle 9/11.

"Are these pissant countries really some huge threat?"

As much as these rogue nations harbor, sponsor and support international terrorism, YES, they are a very real and powerful threat.

"Does Bush really care all that much about "protecting" us from them? Obviously not. He still wants open borders with Mexico." (anonymous)

Yet another insipid statement and I have to say that, even though I personally disagree with Bush's immigration policies.

Sadly you've mischaracterized them. To give you the benefit of the doubt, that's probably because you're unaware of them.

It's the far Left that favors an "open borders policy." Bush favors the Senate Bill that seeks to fine companies that hire illegals, set up an orderly "guest worker program" that requires fines and backtaxes from illegals in order for them to erventually gain citizenship.

I want the primary emphasis on securing the borders with walls and armed guards, etc., a secondary emphasis on fining both companies AND individuals who use "undocumented workers" and a tertiary emphasis on some sort of "guest worker program" that doesn't undercut American labor, in other words, still maintains the minimum wage provisions, etc.

Bush is much closer to what I want than what the far Left wants - open borders.

"Maybe Republicans really are cowards though, since none of them managed to show up when America was fighting wars in the past." (anonymous)

It's always difficult to deal with idle speculation, but one indication that that is not the case is the fact that back in 2000, when Florida Dems sought to remove the Military ballots coming in from overseas because they didn't have "appropriate date stamps," the reason for that was that over 80% of those ballots voted Republican. Those FL Dems knew exactly what they were doing...it was a clever move on their part. Unethical, but clever.

Even to this day, the vast majority of Military ballots tend to go Republican.

I don't blame you for not putting your name on those comments. It actually shows some good sense.

I wouldn't put my name to comments like those either.