NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3AHF4I24DYHIGCRBAELCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=6731678)


By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned the United States, Britain and Iraq that an assault on Falluja risked further alienating the Iraqi people and undermining planned January elections.

The warning, contained in letters dated last Sunday and obtained by Reuters on Friday, surfaced as U.S. troops urged civilians to flee the rebel-held city and launched air strikes in preparation for an assault aimed at crippling the insurgency before the elections.

Iraqis will vote on Jan. 27, Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari told Reuters in Baghdad on Friday.

A U.N. spokesman said the letters to President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi were "private communications between the secretary-general and heads of state" and declined comment.

But U.N. officials made no secret of their fear that a large-scale attack on Falluja could provoke an election boycott by Sunni Muslims and undermine efforts to promote stability.

"The concern is the broadest possible buy-in into the political process and the broadest possible participation," U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Kieran Prendergast told reporters.

Allawi argues force must be used against those who have attacked civilians and want to gain power through violence, and Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Samir Sumaidy has asked to meet with Annan to express his government's point of view on the letter, diplomats said.

But Iraqi leaders appeared divided on the matter.

"Using force that kills civilians on a large scale is a mistake. The logic of occupation must end," Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid al-Bayati said on Thursday.

Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Danforth, said Washington would have no comment "on advice given in New York regarding military decisions in Iraq."

"This issue is for the Government of Iraq and those who are in Iraq willing to help them," Grenell said.

But Bush administration officials told U.N. officials that Annan's letter was "off the mark" as an attack on Falluja was meant to loosen the grip of a "band of thugs" so citizens could vote freely in the planned elections, said a senior State Department official who asked not to be identified.

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said: "Falluja is an issue for the Iraqi Government. Security is one of their overwhelming concerns -- that shouldn't be underestimated."

"You can't have an area the size of Falluja operating as a base for terrorism." Jones Parry said.

In his letters, Annan said elections were "the keystone in a broader process to restore stability and legitimacy in Iraq."

"If the January 2005 elections are to contribute to this critically important objective, and not to fuel further divisions and instability, it is essential that current efforts to attract a broader spectrum of Iraqis to join the political process should succeed," he said.

"The threat or actual use of force not only risks deepening the sense of alienation of certain communities, but would also reinforce perceptions among the Iraqi population of a continued military occupation," Annan wrote.

Let the U.N. bashing/liberal media propaganda accusations/U.S. jingoism commence.

"Warns" Why? What the hell can Annan do to stop The US and The UK doing, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm whatever the hell they want to do , In fallujah?

Link (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3AHF4I24DYHIGCRBAELCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=6731678)


Let the U.N. bashing/liberal media propaganda accusations/U.S. jingoism commence.


Seriously the UN is more corrupt then most governments. Can you defend the food for oil scandal.

Annan is an idiot. Falluja should be flattened as an example.

He did not say "Don't do that or the UN will be pissed" He said "Be careful what you do or the Iraqis will be pissed." Don't twist this out of proportion.

Annan is an idiot. Falluja should be flattened as an example.
It would be the same kind of example the terrorists accomplished with the World Trade Center. And what did it get them? A whole lotta trouble, that's what.

And that's the same thing that the US would get if they go into Fallujah with too much force; hence the UN warning, not threat.

Let the U.N. bashing/liberal media propaganda accusations/U.S. jingoism commence.

Oh what the heck, I'll fall for your bait anyway. The UN is an outdated, corrupt, unprincipled waste of time and money. The UN serves absolutely no function except to act as a haven to legitimize dictators and thugs.

Example Number 1: The UN Oil for Food Program. The Duelfer(spelling?) and the Volcker report says it all.

The UN doesn't amount to a fart in a hurricane.
And that's the same thing that the US would get if they go into Fallujah with too much force; hence the UN warning, not threat.
In war, there is NO SUCH THING as "too much force."

Example Number 1: The UN Oil for Food Program. The Duelfer(spelling?) and the Volcker report says it all.
Counter-example number 1: Erradication of smallpox.

In war, there is NO SUCH THING as "too much force."
Oh, yes, there is. The Alamo, for example, wasn't quite appropriate. Many Japanes actions in Manchuria were uncalled for. And there are other examples you may want to research.

Counter-example number 1: Erradication of smallpox.
Who invented the vaccine that made it possible for the UN to immunize people against smallpox? THAT'S who really should get the credit.

Oh, yes, there is. The Alamo, for example, wasn't quite appropriate. Many Japanes actions in Manchuria were uncalled for. And there are other examples you may want to research.
How do you mean "[not] quite appropriate" and "uncalled for": In a moral sense, or in a tactical/strategic sense?

Who invented the vaccine that made it possible for the UN to immunize people against smallpox? THAT'S who really should get the credit.
Jenner already gets enough credit. But inventing the vaccine is not enough, you still have to get it to the population of THE ENTIRE WORLD. Not an easy feat at all.

How do you mean "[not] quite appropriate" and "uncalled for": In a moral sense, or in a tactical/strategic sense?
Both. The Alamo rallied the Texian forces and gave them even more strength in their pupose. Taking the place was tactically importarnt, but the massacre that followed wasn't.

Same thing happened in Manchuria. The brute force used by the Japanese only got them more rebellion and the isolation from the Western powers, which eventually led to a confrontation against Europe and the US in WW2.

Jenner already gets enough credit. But inventing the vaccine is not enough, you still have to get it to the population of THE ENTIRE WORLD. Not an easy feat at all.
You must first have something to distribute!

You must first have something to distribute!
Yes, your point being?

Annan is an idiot. Falluja should be flattened as an example.

Oh great! That's the mentality! :rolleyes:

"Americans are idiots! We should steer planes into their buildings to wake them up!"

Didn't really help OBL's case, did it? :rolleyes:

Yes, your point being?
It's a prerequisite to distribution. Distribution is impossible without something to distribute. Sorry, but I can't make it any more clear than that.

It's a prerequisite to distribution. Distribution is impossible without something to distribute. Sorry, but I can't make it any more clear than that.
And this detracts from the accomplishment of the UN because... ?

OK, there are two sides to this. You see, if we blow up Falluja, and kill thousands in the process, then it is possible that we could cause even more resistance. However, that is assuming the majority of Iraqis at least benevolently support the rebels. Is that truly the case?

The other side of the issue is that anything less than a full-on raid against Falluja would cost more lives.

So here is my solution. Give them one month to evacuate. Warn all civilians to move out of the city. Once the time has passed, I would call a full bombing raid down like the fist of heaven. Since we already rebuild everything we destroy, we might as well kill everyone that remains in the city after we have given them a month to abandon it. Anyone that is left will be considered a rebel or at least to be guily of aiding and abetting in the murders of countless innocent civilians who got blown up by suicide bombers. I have no pity for terrorists, even when they call themselves freedom fighters.

And this detracts from the accomplishment of the UN because... ?
Because the UN didn't create the drug, and it was actually fairly inefficient in its distribution. Not to mention that the drug could hav easily been distributed by a nation such as the US with economic ties to much of the world.

Hey why was our Black Watch sent out there to the "triangle of death". What can 850 Scottish troops do that 4,000 Americans can't?

The UN doesn't amount to a fart in a hurricane.

In war, there is NO SUCH THING as "too much force."
Exactly! The idea of war is to close with and destroy the enemy ... period.

BTW ... here's a new PDW that seems super-kewl:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_HK,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Because the UN didn't create the drug, and it was actually fairly inefficient in its distribution. Not to mention that the drug could hav easily been distributed by a nation such as the US with economic ties to much of the world.
So, because the UN didn't invent the vaccine (and neither did the US, by the way) then somehow its organization of an incredible distribution network reaching to the ends of the Earth and the eradication of a scourge of humanity in only 13 years is worthless. I think you should grow to realize a few things.

If it was so easy for the US, why hadn't they done so? Look, if you know something about distribution you'd realize just how difficult this task was and how much time and effort it took. The US alone couldn't have done it and that's the simple truth.

And another simple truth is that there will always be people too dense for whom the UN will always be in the wrong, no matter what it does and how it accomplishes it or what limitations are imposed on its mandate.

OK, there are two sides to this. You see, if we blow up Falluja, and kill thousands in the process, then it is possible that we could cause even more resistance. However, that is assuming the majority of Iraqis at least benevolently support the rebels. Is that truly the case?

The other side of the issue is that anything less than a full-on raid against Falluja would cost more lives.

So here is my solution. Give them one month to evacuate. Warn all civilians to move out of the city. Once the time has passed, I would call a full bombing raid down like the fist of heaven. Since we already rebuild everything we destroy, we might as well kill everyone that remains in the city after we have given them a month to abandon it. Anyone that is left will be considered a rebel or at least to be guily of aiding and abetting in the murders of countless innocent civilians who got blown up by suicide bombers. I have no pity for terrorists, even when they call themselves freedom fighters.
All the non-combatants (and probably some combatants with them) have already left the city. Nearly 300,000 of them, in fact. Almost the entire population. We have already reached the point where the only people left there are bad guys.
"IOL (Islam Online) correspondent says that more than 70% of Fallujah’s 300,000 population have left during October.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/31/article04.shtml

Exactly! The idea of war is to close with and destroy the enemy ... period.

No, the idea of war is to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. To destroy the enemy is, or borders on, genocide.

No, the idea of war is to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. To destroy the enemy is, or borders on, genocide.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit.

So here is my solution. Give them one month to evacuate. Warn all civilians to move out of the city. Once the time has passed, I would call a full bombing raid down like the fist of heaven. Since we already rebuild everything we destroy, we might as well kill everyone that remains in the city after we have given them a month to abandon it. Anyone that is left will be considered a rebel or at least to be guily of aiding and abetting in the murders of countless innocent civilians who got blown up by suicide bombers. I have no pity for terrorists, even when they call themselves freedom fighters.
Worked for Santa Ana.

Not!

No, the idea of war is to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. To destroy the enemy is, or borders on, genocide.
You're trying to inject morality into war. There is no inherent morality in war, only that which we choose to exercise in our prosecution of it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit.
Oh, when you put it that way, in such fine words and with that flawless logic, I can see that I was wrong. You are certainly in the right, sir. My hat's off to you and your masterful display of reason and intelligence.

You're trying to inject morality into war. There is no inherent morality in war, only that which we choose to exercise in our prosecution of it.
Of course, and as signataries of the Geneva convention the US and other civilized nations have agreed to limit war to those definitions given.

He did not say "Don't do that or the UN will be pissed" He said "Be careful what you do or the Iraqis will be pissed." Don't twist this out of proportion.
i think that most iraqis would love to see foreign insurgents out of fallujah...especially those that had to evacuate..so they can start to rebuild and move forward with their lives...

Of course, and as signataries of the Geneva convention the US and other civilized nations have agreed to limit war to those definitions given.
I seriously doubt if the Geneva Convention limits the amount of force that can be applied to enemy combatants on a battlefield (short of WMD). What, is it OK to shoot them, but not bomb them? Or does it say that one side cannot have more than a certain amount of manpower advantage? What about limiting the degree of technological advantage?

i think that most iraqis would love to see foreign insurgents out of fallujah...especially those that had to evacuate..so they can start to rebuild and move forward with their lives...

How can you say that, have you spoken to a number of Iraqis on this matter, and I dont mean the rich ones in the Green Zone with bodyguards etc, i mean the real people of Iraq in the streets and slums and suburbs, the ones who have lived there under Saddam as they could not afford to get out.

I cannot claim to speak for what they think either, nobody but other Arabs and Iraqis know what the people on the ground will think.

I seriously doubt if the Geneva Convention limits the amount of force that can be applied to enemy combatants on a battlefield (short of WMD). What, is it OK to shoot them, but not bomb them? Or does it say that one side cannot have more than a certain amount of manpower advantage? What about limiting the degree of technological advantage?
No, I wasn't referring to the amount of force on this one. This reply was to the "war is destroying the enemy" as opposed to "war is destroying the enemy's ability to fight", which is pretty much the spirit of the Geneva convention and what a modern war is about.

The Geneva convention doesn't limit the amount of force, however you don't always want to use too much force because of consequences like strengthening the resistance or humanitarian considerations.

i think that most iraqis would love to see foreign insurgents out of fallujah...especially those that had to evacuate..so they can start to rebuild and move forward with their lives...


I bet that most Iraquis didn't want to see their homes bombed to hell. I bet that they would love to see the American's out of Fallujah, that are going to blow their houses, kill their kin, unless they evacuate (or even if they evacuate). I bet that they aren't very happy that the US is attacking their city. Would you be happy if an Iraqui attacked your city?

Every human being as the right to defend is homeland. I sincerily wish my best regards, and good luck in the fight to any Iraqui that defends Fallujah against a foreign Invader.

I seriously doubt if the Geneva Convention limits the amount of force that can be applied to enemy combatants on a battlefield (short of WMD). What, is it OK to shoot them, but not bomb them? Or does it say that one side cannot have more than a certain amount of manpower advantage? What about limiting the degree of technological advantage?
Well said. Iztet seems to have fallen into a tragic hole. First, he assumes that you are not morally allowed to kill enemies on the battlefield. Iztet, if they do not submit, if they do not surrender, then they are little more than targets. That is the nature of warfare. Perhaps your sensibilities are too sympathetic to concieve of such a thing, but for those of us who have had friends, relatives, and neighbors put their lives on the line, as well as those who have put their own lives on the line, we have come to understand that when the shooting starts, you don't think about how the other guy feels. That is why all the great war poets died in battle. You have to be able to block out that natural, sympathetic tendency and concentrate on the fact that you will die of you do not kill the enemy.

And as for the UN. You honestly think that organizing world wide distribution in 13 years is impressive? Given 13 years, the US could easily make arrangements to ship the drug to every nation in the world. You act as if it is up to the UN to make sure it is given out. In fact, the individual country should handle distribution, while one or two economically strong nations handle shipping. It would be faster and much more effective.

I bet that most Iraquis didn't want to see their homes bombed to hell. I bet that they would love to see the American's out of Fallujah, that are going to blow their houses, kill their kin, unless they evacuate (or even if they evacuate). I bet that they aren't very happy that the US is attacking their city. Would you be happy if an Iraqui attacked your city?

Every human being as the right to defend is homeland. I sincerily wish my best regards, and good luck in the fight to any Iraqui that defends Fallujah against a foreign Invader.

considering most of the fighters in falujah seem to be foreign insurgents i too offer my hope that the iraqis stand up to the foreign invaders that are using their homes as a battleground for their war against the u.s.

How can you say that, have you spoken to a number of Iraqis on this matter, and I dont mean the rich ones in the Green Zone with bodyguards etc, i mean the real people of Iraq in the streets and slums and suburbs, the ones who have lived there under Saddam as they could not afford to get out.

I cannot claim to speak for what they think either, nobody but other Arabs and Iraqis know what the people on the ground will think.

yes i have spoken with iraqi soldiers recently here at camp shelby in hattiesburg mississippi who are helping to train the next deployment of 9000 plus soldiers on how to fight insurgents in iraq..and do it in a way that will not only help remove them but do so in a way that will give encouragement the average iraqi...and these are not rich officer type soldiers but mainstream guards who served ( "reluctantly" in their words) in saddams army...how many have you spoken with?

considering most of the fighters in falujah seem to be foreign insurgents i too offer my hope that the iraqis stand up to the foreign invaders that are using their homes as a battleground for their war against the u.s.

How do you know this? Where is the evidence for this? Because the TV said so? What is on our TV screens is rarely what goes on in reality, and if they are wrong they never retract thier statements.

The Geneva convention doesn't limit the amount of force, however you don't always want to use too much force because of consequences like strengthening the resistance or humanitarian considerations.

Humanitarian considerations?
I'm sorry, but I follow the ideals of "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. Either they surrender, regardless of how they feel about it, or they leave themselves open to further attacks. Unarmed opponents who have surrendered are out of limits, but until they drop the weapons they are a threat.

yes i have spoken with iraqi soldiers recently here at camp shelby in hattiesburg mississippi who are helping to train the next deployment of 9000 plus soldiers on how to fight insurgents in iraq..and do it in a way that will not only help remove them but do so in a way that will give encouragement the average iraqi...and these are not rich officer type soldiers but mainstream guards who served ( "reluctantly" in their words) in saddams army...how many have you spoken with?

The Iraqi troops are being trained in Mississippi?

How do you know this? Where is the evidence for this? Because the TV said so? What is on our TV screens is rarely what goes on in reality, and if they are wrong they never retract thier statements.


you dont need to tell me of the hypocrisy of the media..i have worked 10 years in television..everyday on the satellite feeds and our cnn and cbs newsservers i see all of the stories that are available for use..i also see how stories that show citizens welcoming soldiers..school children wanting photos with soldiers after they are given more school supplies in one day than they have seen in a lifetime get overlooked because they are not a "hard enough" news story...and if we catch a mistake on our newscast we retract it in the same newscast..thanx

The Iraqi troops are being trained in Mississippi?
no but they have several dozen iraqi soldiers helping train ms and tennessee national guardsmen on what to expect and how to handle it when they get to iraq

and if we catch a mistake on our newscast we retract it in the same newscast..thanx

And what if it proves to be false days or weeks afterwards? For example the dirty bomb situation, there has been all this fuss that thousands will die etc etc, and then when the US Government conducted a test saying that there would be zero deaths from a dirty bomb via radiation, nothing has been said; therefore the millions of Westerners are wandering aroung scared of a dirty bomb that would do practically nohing to hurt them unless they stood right next to it, no media outlet has reported on this to put people right.

And what if it proves to be false days or weeks afterwards? For example the dirty bomb situation, there has been all this fuss that thousands will die etc etc, and then when the US Government conducted a test saying that there would be zero deaths from a dirty bomb via radiation, nothing has been said; therefore the millions of Westerners are wandering aroung scared of a dirty bomb that would do practically nohing to hurt them unless they stood right next to it, no media outlet has reported on this to put people right.

first yes we would update any story as the facts change...second i have heard of no study that shows radiation wouldn't be extremely detrimental to a persons health..if that is tru then we had better tell all the children dieing fro a condition known as chernobyl heart that they can buck up cause radiation wont kill you

And as for the UN. You honestly think that organizing world wide distribution in 13 years is impressive? Given 13 years, the US could easily make arrangements to ship the drug to every nation in the world. You act as if it is up to the UN to make sure it is given out. In fact, the individual country should handle distribution, while one or two economically strong nations handle shipping. It would be faster and much more effective.

Yes, it IS impressive. Brokering the deals, negotiating distribution and actually distributing is was a HUGHE effort, thankfully successful. You forget the time as the UN did this was a lot different then now.

NO global communications.
NO enhanced fast transports.
NO or only very limited infrastructure in most parts of the world
Limited medical personell assets.

At the time it happened it was a nigh-to-impossible task. Mind you, I´m working in global indsutrial logistics management. I DO know what pain it is to organized global shipment, distribution and application. So please sapre us with your petty rants on "how the US could have done it better.".

Because the US couldn´t have done it faster, better or more efficent. Because noone EVER tried such a thing before. Just becaus YOU hate the UN so much, dare NOT to defile that noble task and those who worked hard (and some of them probably died - statistics involved one could calculate transport accidents, etc.) with your petty, arrogant, jingoisitc hatred.

If the US is so great prove it by actually doing something against:

AIDS
malnutrition
Hepatitis

You should be able to tackle malnutrition. There´s enough food to feed double (IIRC) the world population, distributing it is a problem. Go ahead, try it.

As for Fallujah: Send in the infantry. Sure, a lot of them will die, get maimed or whatever. Just send in more and more. Soldiers are replaceable (lets face it, don´t buy that crap of "Leave no man behind"). Solider´s lives are the currency of war, spend them well. Make sure their death achieves something. Otherwise, just send in some more to. All that counts is victory.

Unpopular maybe, but necessary. Bombing the place into oblivion. Well. great idea. Really. Mr. Arm-Chair General. Read the comments on the bombing raids on the Monte Cassino during WWII. They were supposed to flush those German Fallschirmjägers out of that place.

You turned the place upside down and all you got was more cover for the defenders (in that case the Gerries) and a harder route for your own assault troops to go. They got shot like rabbits.

first yes we would update any story as the facts change...second i have heard of no study that shows radiation wouldn't be extremely detrimental to a persons health..if that is tru then we had better tell all the children dieing fro a condition known as chernobyl heart that they can buck up cause radiation wont kill you

I have several sources in fact. You will note I did not say "radiation" per se would do not harm, I said the radiation thrown out of a dirty bomb would do minimal to zero damage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/18/ING427JIH21.DTL

"It's possible that no one would die from the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in one of the nation's cities. There might not even be any injuries"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3040391.html

"'I don't think it would kill anybody,' says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. 'You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise.' The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, 'and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening.' And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/dailyUpdate.html

no but they have several dozen iraqi soldiers helping train ms and tennessee national guardsmen on what to expect and how to handle it when they get to iraq

Which section of the Iraqi Army were they from? Special Republican Guard? The Republican Guard? Regular Army?

I have several sources in fact. You will note I did not say "radiation" per se would do not harm, I said the radiation thrown out of a dirty bomb would do minimal to zero damage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/18/ING427JIH21.DTL

"It's possible that no one would die from the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in one of the nation's cities. There might not even be any injuries"
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3040391.html

"'I don't think it would kill anybody,' says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. 'You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise.' The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, 'and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening.' And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/dailyUpdate.html


now we all know that every expert has to put out their own interpretations of stuff..i have even read that second hand smoke isn't harmful..but the fact remains how would he know what was in the dirty bomb....how much..unless they tested every variable of a dirty bomb than we still dont know exactly what would happen

The American tatics in Iraq are only serving to create more terrorists and more terroris, the yanks are too heavy handed as simple as that.

And as for the UK troops going up to help, well if the Labour party had anyone who could take over from Blair, he would have gone a long long time ago.

Which section of the Iraqi Army were they from? Special Republican Guard? The Republican Guard? Regular Army?
the main one i remember was regular army and served during and after the 1st gulf war..he was able to get out about a year before the current iragi action started

The same regular army men who stopped, dropped and ran during the invasion and were considered amongst the worst trained out of all Arab nations? But I guess that is irrelevent. What experience do they have in cracking insurgents? Did they fight the Kurds in the north? How much are the US paying them, they are unlikely to risk anything by towing anything but the party line, plus they will be looking out for themselves and thier families. Well, never mind, agree to disagree.

These ad hominen attacks are really annoying. :rolleyes:

Getting back to the original post I think there's lots of inherent risk in sieging Fallujah (which is why Bush pulled back earlier), but what's would be the fallout if there was no siege? We already know that Zawhiriri (sp) is trying to encourage a sectarian war. If it was simply a matter of Fallujah being a no man's land for U.S. troops it wouldn't be so bad, but insurgents are using the city as a base to blow up troops. police trainees, and shiite children. If this is not stopped then we *will* see a sectarian split.

Link (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3AHF4I24DYHIGCRBAELCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=6731678)


Let the U.N. bashing/liberal media propaganda accusations/U.S. jingoism commence.

So we just let the insurgents pile up until they get out of Fallujah, and let them kill even more Americans, Iraqis and Brits?

So we just let the insurgents pile up until they get out of Fallujah, and let them kill even more Americans, Iraqis and Brits?

Assuming that ALL the resistence fighters are foreign terrorists, which is totally naive.. what you say is wrong. What you do is, you get some decent Intel on who are they, and where the terrorists hide. Then you send in elite troops assassinate them, beggining with the leaders.

You put an army in that town and one of two things happens, or both
1) The terrorists just get out of the way, dressed as civilians, nothing big happens, expect that iraquis hate you even more, for invading their land
2) The terrorists stay and fight, knowing that they will go to heaven. It is unlikely that they will ALL be this stupid, especially the leaders, though some will stay and fight


And all this ASSUMING THEY ARE ALL FOREIGN TERRORISTS. Pissed off Iraquis will stay there, and fight for their ground, and you cannot blame them.

Assuming that ALL the resistence fighters are foreign terrorists, which is totally naive.. what you say is wrong. What you do is, you get some decent Intel on who are they, and where the terrorists hide. Then you send in elite troops assassinate them, beggining with the leaders.

You put an army in that town and one of two things happens, or both
1) The terrorists just get out of the way, dressed as civilians, nothing big happens, expect that iraquis hate you even more, for invading their land
2) The terrorists stay and fight, knowing that they will go to heaven. It is unlikely that they will ALL be this stupid, especially the leaders, though some will stay and fight


And all this ASSUMING THEY ARE ALL FOREIGN TERRORISTS. Pissed off Iraquis will stay there, and fight for their ground, and you cannot blame them.

You, good sir, are making a mistake. First you assume that we could pick out the insurgents from foreign lands and kill them off without getting Iraqi insurgents involved. Once they are involved, small numbers of troops wouldn't be sufficient to handle such a situation.

Now we could seal off Fallujah and let the people inside starve to death, but that is totally wrong. Humanitarian crisis deluxe.

Annan is most likely correct in his assertion that a military attack on falluja would increase the hostility of civilian population in the region. Yet, certain questions remain: does the general population of falluja support the insurgency there, or are do they consider themselves victims? From a different and more skeptical viewpoint, if it turns that they do support insurgency. It may be true that the U.S.G. considers them acceptable targets for collateral damage, or direct targets of military action. Either way it appears that the U.S.G., if it remains in its current position, which it intends to do, will have to take violent actions against the insurgency. In effect, it has placed itself directly in the way of danger, which it must subsequently protect itself from. Whether or not this is merely a pretext that creates justification for achieving military-political objectives is also an important issue. Another question is: does this insurgency indeed pose a legitimate threat to the U.S.G? If anyone can elucidate please do so.

Counter-example number 1: Erradication of smallpox.

Hast thou proof?

You, good sir, are making a mistake. First you assume that we could pick out the insurgents from foreign lands and kill them off without getting Iraqi insurgents involved. Once they are involved, small numbers of troops wouldn't be sufficient to handle such a situation.

Now we could seal off Fallujah and let the people inside starve to death, but that is totally wrong. Humanitarian crisis deluxe.

Well, assuming a well informed armed force, you could indeed pick foreign insurgents. Hell, you didn't saw the british sending in armies to fight IRA, when the IDF wants to take out an Hamas guy, they don't invade the guy's town, they find out who he is, then they send in an apache, missiles, blam! They use espionage and counter intelligence. Sending in such a large force is playing foreign terrorists game. And this is, again, assuming the unlikely fact that all insurgents are foreign terrorists. Because if there are IRaqui insurgents out there, then you are screwed alot. Not only they have the moral right to fight you back, but it is likely, that even if those in falluja are defeated, others will rise in other parts of Iraq. Or they have already arisen against you.

If the US is so great prove it by actually doing something against:

AIDS
malnutrition
Hepatitis



America has done more to fight AIDS in Africa than any other country.
Americal sends food, supplies, and medicines overseas all the time. Hepatitis infections are way down among children. No country's perfect. But America's pretty good--at least better than most of the other countries in the world. Whatever money we send, whatever we do, it's never good enough for the UN. They always seem to need more. I wish I had the power to tell the UN to get the hell out of our business.

Hast thou proof?

http://www.who.int/archives/who50/en/smallpox.htm

Yes, it IS impressive. Brokering the deals, negotiating distribution and actually distributing is was a HUGHE effort, thankfully successful. You forget the time as the UN did this was a lot different then now.

NO global communications.
NO enhanced fast transports.
NO or only very limited infrastructure in most parts of the world
Limited medical personell assets.

At the time it happened it was a nigh-to-impossible task. Mind you, I´m working in global indsutrial logistics management. I DO know what pain it is to organized global shipment, distribution and application. So please sapre us with your petty rants on "how the US could have done it better.".

Because the US couldn´t have done it faster, better or more efficent. Because noone EVER tried such a thing before. Just becaus YOU hate the UN so much, dare NOT to defile that noble task and those who worked hard (and some of them probably died - statistics involved one could calculate transport accidents, etc.) with your petty, arrogant, jingoisitc hatred.

If the US is so great prove it by actually doing something against:

AIDS
malnutrition
Hepatitis

You should be able to tackle malnutrition. There´s enough food to feed double (IIRC) the world population, distributing it is a problem. Go ahead, try it.

As for Fallujah: Send in the infantry. Sure, a lot of them will die, get maimed or whatever. Just send in more and more. Soldiers are replaceable (lets face it, don´t buy that crap of "Leave no man behind"). Solider´s lives are the currency of war, spend them well. Make sure their death achieves something. Otherwise, just send in some more to. All that counts is victory.

Unpopular maybe, but necessary. Bombing the place into oblivion. Well. great idea. Really. Mr. Arm-Chair General. Read the comments on the bombing raids on the Monte Cassino during WWII. They were supposed to flush those German Fallschirmjägers out of that place.

You turned the place upside down and all you got was more cover for the defenders (in that case the Gerries) and a harder route for your own assault troops to go. They got shot like rabbits.

Wow I am impressed you both have proved that stupidity knows no natinality. First off with the American. Don't be so high and mighty as to assume the UN has never done anything good. The UN in its fundimental state is a great organization. Right now i think it spends too much time and money on beuracracy and needs a revamping but it still is a great orginization. And for you Ulrichland, your first argument was good, but you should have shut up after that. Does your last part of the statment make you feel like a better person? Do you feel powerful? It really just makes you sound like a pathetic excuse for a human being. I don't care if you to go ahead and flame each other to death, don't drag down people who have more honor then either of you will ever have.

America has done more to fight AIDS in Africa than any other country.
Americal sends food, supplies, and medicines overseas all the time. Hepatitis infections are way down among children. No country's perfect. But America's pretty good--at least better than most of the other countries in the world. Whatever money we send, whatever we do, it's never good enough for the UN. They always seem to need more. I wish I had the power to tell the UN to get the hell out of our business.


The UN as set a target for 0.7% of GDP of each developed country in the world to be turned into foreign aid. The US is the largest gross donor, but it is also the largest economy. In percentual effort (which is the one that counts, since it measures how much effort a nation puts in helping others), your country ranks 20th in the list of donors.
So don't flatter yourself.
And again, I say to the US: Stop giving aid! Really! I'm seeing every country that receives aid from you telling you to take a hyke, then stopping your companies to invest in their territory. That would be swell. Imagine.. Angola, Mozambique, poor countries with huge potential, that receive lots of aid, telling all the US oil companies to go (after all, receiving nothing from your country, why kiss your ass?).. it would be fun! Yea! Be selfish, its nice!

The UN as set a target for 0.7% of GDP of each developed country in the world to be turned into foreign aid. The US is the largest gross donor, but it is also the largest economy. In percentual effort (which is the one that counts, since it measures how much effort a nation puts in helping others), your country ranks 20th in the list of donors.
So don't flatter yourself.
And again, I say to the US: Stop giving aid! Really! I'm seeing every country that receives aid from you telling you to take a hyke, then stopping your companies to invest in their territory. That would be swell. Imagine.. Angola, Mozambique, poor countries with huge potential, that receive lots of aid, telling all the US oil companies to go (after all, receiving nothing from your country, why kiss your ass?).. it would be fun! Yea! Be selfish, its nice!

You know its incredible. I've heard some stupid arguments about which country has done more, but this tops the list. The UN is a great organization. Which despite what either of you would think does great things and the US is a large part of. The people who would be truly hurt if the US pulled out of it would be the people it saves. Portu Cale like you said, America provides the largest gross income, so tell me what would happen to the UN's capabilities without this money? Nobody wants to see that so stop acting like the US means nothing to the UN. Eastern Skae, the US needs the UN as much as the UN needs it. We funnel large amounts of money into the UN and They spread it through out the world. Through a combined effort more people can behelped.

Yes econimically the US doesn't give as much as it should, but when the UN needs a military hand, US troops are usually the backbone of the force. This is not to say that other nations don't contribute troops. They do and i say this to in no way minimize their contributions. I say this to show that what we lack in econmic donations we make up for in blood and sweat.

The UN is something both sides should look at and be proud of. This stupid us vs them mentality only hurts it and the people who suffer are the people it is trying to save.

You know its incredible. I've heard some stupid arguments about which country has done more, but this tops the list. The UN is a great organization. Which despite what either of you would think does great things and the US is a large part of. The people who would be truly hurt if the US pulled out of it would be the people it saves. Portu Cale like you said, America provides the largest gross income, so tell me what would happen to the UN's capabilities without this money? Nobody wants to see that so stop acting like the US means nothing to the UN. Eastern Skae, the US needs the UN as much as the UN needs it. We funnel large amounts of money into the UN and They spread it through out the world. Through a combined effort more people can behelped.

Yes econimically the US doesn't give as much as it should, but when the UN needs a military hand, US troops are usually the backbone of the force. This is not to say that other nations don't contribute troops. They do and i say this to in no way minimize their contributions. I say this to show that what we lack in econmic donations we make up for in blood and sweat.

The UN is something both sides should look at and be proud of. This stupid us vs them mentality only hurts it and the people who suffer are the people it is trying to save.


Ermm, I agree with you, and agree with your point of view. Ermm I was just being sarcastic. Especially because many those that say "pull the plug on the UN" don't even understand that doing that is a near political and economical impossibility.

Pfft the US gives 2x as much towards AIDS as the rest of the world combined. You may try to sneer at that, but pure numbers count as well.

As for the original thread I think it's up to all parties but primarily the Fallujahans/insurgents to find a peaceful solution to this crisis. The sunnis are more than welcome to join the political process, but their problem is they are too used to power and don't want to give it up; also they are afraid of reprisals from shiites.

Ermm, I agree with you, and agree with your point of view. Ermm I was just being sarcastic. Especially because many those that say "pull the plug on the UN" don't even understand that doing that is a near political and economical impossibility.

Ya pulling the plug isn't an option, everyone has way too much invested in it. I personally think the UN has gotten fat and needs to be restructured to get ride of a lot of the wasted beauracracy, but i could be wrong.

I think i killed the thread. Commence Mouth to Mouth.

/beeeeeeeep/

Well its flat lining. Time of death 7:09. Rest in piece.

Twas logic that killed the beast.

/beeeeeeeep/

Well its flat lining. Time of death 7:09. Rest in piece.

Twas logic that killed the beast.

Sorry to resurrect this thread or will it be a reincarnation? Didn't feel like starting a new one and what I found kinda fits here...

America Under Attack
Our great country is under attack. This essay has the best explanation I have read for what we as a nation are going through right now. Please read this and pass this one on to all you know. Mike Meehan - Webmaster

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND
THE GREAT CALIPHATE
By
Larry Abraham

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be overlooked in the madness of this election year.

Part I of this essay was written in January [2004] before the Democrat Party primaries settled anything and before the occupation of Iraq took a turn for the worse. However, it is now more obvious that what I wrote about the nature of the Third Great Jihad is all too true. The political picture has deteriorated in Europe and the U.S .to a great degree since then so Part II takes these developments into consideration. Again, I urge all of you to distribute this essay as far and wide as possible without any concern for copyright violation. Our fellow citizens need to know the true nature of what we all face. LHA

As we watch and listen to all the Democrat Party candidates running for the nomination of their party, it is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won’t take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many, mind numbing times over the past months but what you have not heard is crucial.

I must also fault President Bush and the administration spokesmen for not telling the American people what they really need to know about this “war”. If they don’t do that sometime between now and November it may cost them the election.

It Did Not Start on 9/11

The war we are now facing did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authorities in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the “ Third Great Jihad” and are doing so within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the Seventh century and their attempts to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, than did Islam and the reasons for this growth are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. The Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire was based in Constantinople and trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were unbearable as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church. What Islam offered was the “carrot or the sword”.

If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn’t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (old testament). Both were called “children of the book”, the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New testaments for Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the “word” Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the “first” great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established the religion on the Iberian peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The “second great jihad” came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam’s most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in “the ways of the Prophet”. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final and failed attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival know has Wahhabism which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites. What this sect calls for is the complete and total rejection of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and it finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afgani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the “third Jihad”.

Jimmy Carter sets the stage

The strategy for this “holy war” did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the plans for toppling the Shah of Iran back in the early 1970’s and culminated with his exile in 1979. With his plans and programs to “westernize” his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his arm forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the “Great Caliphate”.

The Great Caliphate

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and finally what they call the “occupied territory” Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and what was attempted in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons.

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. 1. The U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. 2. Taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves, and 3. Using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations.


Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the facts that immediately following the 9/11 attack, their first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.
Why Iraq?

The war on Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or his willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to “Stop The War”. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little know politician as the thrust point; Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the “Dean Phenomenon”.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the “Hate Bush” liberals, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e. Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November and a new administration come to power we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I believe that this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors, V.I. Lenin admonished…”two steps forward, one step back”.

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church and Carter’s CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. Jimmy Carter is the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the “advice and counsel” of this despicable little hypocrite who now prances around with his Nobel Prize, while attacking President Bush with almost as much venom as his fellow Nobel Laureate, Yassir Arafat.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French.


Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Amid Ben Bella, the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totally twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of “knowing our enemy” the results will be catastrophic.

PART II (May 1, 2004)

Since writing the above, we have witnessed some frightening evidence in support of our hypothesis both internally and in other parts of the world.

The al Qaeda bombing in Madrid has emboldened our enemy into believing it can use terror as an instrument for democratic regime change. Based on what happened there, they may be right.

Kerry and bin Laden on the same page

John Kerry and other leaders of his party constantly refer to the United States as “acting unilaterally.” They give no credit whatsoever to countries like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Australia or even tiny Honduras for putting their limited armed forces in harm’s way to support the U.S. led coalition in Iraq. It is little wonder that some are considering doing what Spain has done—pulling out. The leaders in these countries have spent considerable political capital in this effort, and have little to show for it as it relates to fostering good will with the American public. Couple that fact with Osama bin Ladin’s latest offer of withholding attacks on those who “quit” the coalition and you have all the elements for a Democrat party fostered “self-fulfilling prophecy” where the U.S. will be totally alone in the pacification of Iraq. John Kerry and the Bush critics persist in the “lie” of the U.S. going it “alone” in Iraq but Osama bin Laden knows differently and will use the Kerry rhetoric to help isolate the U.S. The terrorists now see themselves as political “king-makers”. They may be right.

Another aspect of the “anti-Bush” political axis is how both his political enemies and the main stream media take ghoulish delight in “the body count,” just as they did in the later days of Vietnam. Oh sure, they pay incidental homage to the memory of the young Americans who gave their lives in the greatest threat this country has ever faced, but they do so with all the sincerity of Madonna making a vow of chastity. As the body bags grow in number, they believe, so grows their political prospects. They may be right.

If the Bush administration is further weakened in the months leading up to the November elections, we will witness a heightened al Qaeda offensive in all parts of the world, including our own country, and especially in Iraq and nations surrounding it ,i.e., Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Events within the past few days in Jordan not only make this argument but also point to the possibility of “what happened to the WMDs.”
Iran and Syria are daily growing more overt and bold in their support of insurgents within Iraq, believing that Bush has been so hurt by internal politics that he is powerless to act against them in any meaningful way. They may be right.

The Leftwing initiative, Political Correctness and Our Will to Win

Within our own country we are witnessing and almost insane application of “political correctness.” As the barbarism of radical Islam grows more apparent in the streets of the Middle East from Gaza to Basra, we see a cultural suicide taking place within our own schools and communities.

Our children are being taught from the Koran, our professors are preaching intifadah in their class rooms, and Muslim “call to prayer” loud speakers are blaring out from city halls. The more precarious our very existence becomes, the more our liberal brethren embrace their enemies. It is a Stockholm Syndrome which can only lead to the recruitment of young Muslims who will be willing to duplicate in the West what their co-religionists are doing in the streets of Israel and the market places of Baghdad. The liberal P.C. crowd say nothing about the silence of the Muslim religious leadership as it relates to the carnage of innocents but couldn’t speak out fast enough against the inspiration supplied to tens of millions of Christians by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. They were put off by the movie’s “violence” and its alleged “fostering of anti-Semitism”. Movies must represent their “reality” as the real thing moves them not at all. Among liberal Jews in America, hatred of George W. Bush is only surpassed by their contempt for Ariel Sharon…Let them explain it, I am at a total loss to do so. Maybe they just miss seeing Bill Clinton smooching Yassir Arafat in the White House Rose Garden.

The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson is now calling the U.S. “guilty of crimes against humanity” as he sets out to mobilize the non-Islamic Left. None of the Democrat leadership says a word in opposition to Jackson’s treason or Hillary’s attacks on the President and U.S. policy in an Arabic newspaper, while in London. You can bet that al Jezeera didn’t miss a beat in their reporting of both events.

The campaign takes its toll

The campaign is seriously hurting Mr. Bush’s leadership role in the War on Terror. While ducking every new book critical of his initiative or trying to counter the partisan nitpicking of the 9/11 Commission, he has persisted in the misbegotten insistence of “installing democracy” in Iraq. Our purpose for being in that beleaguered country should be restricted to one purpose and one purpose only, to stop the expansion of The Third Jihad and provide a base for doing same in the neighboring areas. This can be done by sealing the borders, attacking anything that moves in violation of same and by making it clear to Syria and Iran that any participation on their part will be considered an “act of war”. Let the country be governed by the local tribes, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the central and Kurds in the north with a U.S. pro consul overseeing the military. Oil revenues could be spilt by population allocation. How about installing a Republic…it worked pretty well here with diverse populations.

The very idea that we should spend our sons and daughters blood or our tax dollars on trying to building a “democracy” in the region which has neither a history nor a desire for such, is sheer nonsense. The very essence of Islamic teaching speaks directly against this principle. Continuing on the current path can only result in fostering greater hatred for the “Great Satan”. Force is the only thing which is respected in that part of the world and this force need not be tied to “reform”. I suggest Mr. Rumsfled acquaint himself with a copy of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars and Sun Tsu’s Art of War. All the tactics and strategies necessary to subdue the Iraqi insurgents can be found in those two military gems.

Please not the UN

Bringing the U.N. to the party will only compound the problem without adding any accountability. The U.N. has been accused of many things over the years, but being a “democratic” institution has never been one of them. Just the latest scandal of the “Oil for Food” program should provide any thinking person with all the evidence they need to keep the U.N. at bay. But this doesn’t seem to bother the likes of the John Kerry’s of the world who prattle on as if the scam doesn’t even exist.

Just one example will make my case; the UN mandate in Israel, which has been in place since 1948. One more salient point needs to be made on this subject. There is no such thing as “The International Community.” There are only individual countries, each with its own agenda which is always self serving. The myth of a higher level of “moral authority” coming out of the UN as been one of the greater lies of the past half century, but it is a lie which persists in spite of a bloody record of hypocrisy, graft, genocide and “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” I have a suggestion for the 9/11 Commission:.Why don’t they look into what the UN was doing before the attack on the World Trade Center? If they do, they will find that exactly one week before, the UN was holding a Conference on Racism in Durbin, South Africa where the delegates voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel, as “racist and terrorist.” The U.S., Canadian and Israeli delegates walked out in disgust. Nary a word was uttered about Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, or the Taliban, to say nothing of what was happening in Rwanda while they crunched caviar on toast and washed it down with vintage Champagne. Genocide does not qualify as “racism” according to the UN “morality.” Neither we nor the world needs the UN to muck up what is already a very delicate situation. If given proper leadership every Middle Eastern country named above will throw in with the Coalition, for if they don’t they will be the next targets of the Third Great Jihad and the Great Caliphate. Pakistan is already showing the leadership which others will follow. What do you think moved Kadahaffi to cozy up to the U.S. and Great Britain? He fears the Jihadist more than he hates us.

Evil Does Exist

Our current crises, in meeting the threat of the Third Jihad, is one more example of how most Americans simply refuse to believe there is evil in this world and are willing to grant moral equivalence on any human action. Unless the crime is personalized such as in the case of Lacy Peterson, we lose interest quickly and become bored or at least not involved.

To try and understand what we are facing, look into the eyes of your son or grandson and try to fathom a mind which would take pride in strapping a bomb to his body and sending him out to kill himself and countless innocent people. Or in the case of your daughter or grand daughter, try to imagine a religion which commands you to mutilate her vagina to destroy her sex drive or demands you to stone her to death if she has sexual relations with a man other than of your choosing.

If you can comprehend these facts both intellectually and emotionally, then you will start to understand what we are facing in the months and years ahead, both at home and abroad.

The radicals of Islam will stop at nothing to destroy us and all we stand for. They see this war as their “entry to paradise” and a release from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the confines of an evil and perverse religion. The Jihadist are NOT like us, nor most of their fellow Muslims. But, like terrorists everywhere they have silenced any criticisms from fellow Muslims through threat and intimidation and have, with the help of the ‘useful idiots” in the West, “created the appearance of popular support”.

If we are incapable of understanding these realities and acting accordingly, within the life time of everyone who reads these words, we will see our cherished way of life cease to exist and chaos become our lot. The Clash of Civilizations is now reaching out and touching all of us. May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to meet the challenge.

I respectfully dedicate the above to the memory of Pat Tillman and his 872 comrades who by their courage and willing sacrifice set an example for every American. May we be worthy of their “greatest love…”

Larry Abraham


Combine with the fact that G W Bush studied the Muslim Religion and text, makes some of the events after 9/11 a little different. I mean everyone calls him stupid, but that's because he surrounds himself with intelligent men (not saying their wise... just smart.)

Granted, Still researching some of the claims. but wanted others opinions on the matter.