No, that was a sarcastic reply to people who seem to thing the world is devided by "left" and "right", all black and white, no possibility of anything else. Said that way because they usually associate the "left" (read as anyone who disagrees with them) as communists. Or lately, terrorists, as that is the current popular watchword. (I'm a product of the 70's and 80's I suppose)

As I clearly do not fit their view of black and white, I make a good rebuttal to their ignorant stereotyping.

 

Hmmmm

Terrorist I do not think so:

"The United States had warned Japan many times that they would use their new weapon if Japan wouldn’t surrender."

Did Pearl have warnings?
Did New York have warnings?

 

AMEN BB

 

bump

 

a must read for war mongers

Editorial: Fighting jihad/A different approach is required
November 20, 2004 ED1120

When French President Jacques Chirac says, as he did Wednesday, that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has made the world more dangerous, Americans may be inclined to dismiss his comments. After all, it's the French, you know. But it is less easy to dismiss the same conclusion reached by a panel of American counterterrorism experts. In a report commissioned by the Century Foundation, such a panel found that "the war in Iraq has been deeply counter-productive" to the worldwide effort to defeat the jihadists.
"As a sin of commission," the panel said, "the Iraq war alienated crucial allies in the battle against jihadists, made friendly Muslims into skeptics, made skeptics into radicals and created a sanctuary for itinerant jihadist insurgents."
"As a sin of omission, the Iraq war diverted massive and much-needed resources from the fight against jihadists. The continued unrest in Iraq will further delay any U.S. effort to create a new international coalition to confront Syria's and Iran's support for terrorist activities, a point not lost on Damascus and Tehran."
This is not an anti-Bush campaign screed from the Democratic Party. It comes from a panel of distinguished Americans led by Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief. While Clarke has been an outspoken critic of Bush administration policies, his criticism has always been grounded in his expertise, not in an anti-Bush agenda.
The main purpose of the paper that Clarke and his colleagues developed is to lay out a path going forward in the fight against the jihadists. Their choice of "jihadists" rather than "terror" or even "Al-Qaida" is purposeful. "Terror" is simply the tactic the jihadists use, and the ranks of jihadists extend well beyond Al-Qaida.
How many jihadists are there? The panel views them as occupying four concentric rings. At the center are the several hundred members of Al-Qaida. The second ring contains "active members of other jihadist groups" and probably numbers in the tens of thousands. The third ring contains tens of millions who identify with jihadist causes and might provide logistical or financial support. The fourth ring is the Islamic world of more than 1 billion people, most non-Arabs.
People can move between the rings, the panel says, and the United States must be aware of what stimulates such movement. Supporting a repressive government (such as that of Uzbekistan) because it will fight a second-ring group of jihadist terrorists can make the jihadist movement more appealing to people in the third and fourth rings.
So what would work? The panel offers 10 recommendations, outlined in exhaustive detail in the full report. They include: Focus on winning what the 9/11 commission called the "struggle of ideas;" invest heavily in education and development in Islamic nations; seek to better understand and then develop tailored strategies for dealing with key countries such as Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; seek to defuse Islamic hatred for the United States through such actions as exiting Iraq as soon as possible and getting heavily involved in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; take greater steps to improve U.S. intelligence, combat terrorist financing, strengthen U.S. special forces, improve port and transit security, strengthen nuclear anti-terrorism efforts and reduce reliance on Middle East oil.
It's a very good list, with a great deal to commend itself to a second Bush administration. It relies heavily on using what is called "soft power" alongside the "hard power" that comes out of the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, President Bush has shown little inclination to embrace in a second term the soft power he shunned in the first. Indeed, recent appointments to his national security team show supreme confidence in his first-term policies -- policies influenced heavily by the neoconservatives who rely on might and very little on goodwill or respect.
More of the same is what Americans are likely to get for the next four years. But where the issue is the battle against jihadists, the Clarke panel makes one powerful argument: Bush's approach isn't likely to work.



Makes sense to me,and so does this one



another story for the war clan

CON: History has been ignored, the enemy misunderstood
Eric Black, Star Tribune
November 21, 2004 RETHINK1121CON

Political scientist Roy Grow believes that any plan that relies on a large U.S. military presence to defeat Muslim insurgents will strengthen Al-Qaida more than it advances U.S. security.
"Remember, the U.S. Army in Vietnam won every battle, but lost the war," said Grow, director of the International Relations Program at Carleton College in Northfield and a former analyst for the National Security Agency.
Here are some of the main points of his analysis:
Al-Qaida is not an army that can be defeated in a military battle. It uses terrorism as a tactic, but describing it as a terrorist organization misdirects policy by suggesting it is a small group that can be defeated by killing its members.
Al-Qaida has to be understood fundamentally on the basis of the idea that it represents, which is that Islam should be governed as one big nation (or caliphate) under Qur'anic law as in the centuries after the time of the Prophet Mohammed.
Outside powers representing offensive non-Islamic values and culture prevent Muslims from controlling their own destiny, Al-Qaida argues. This problem dates to at least the post-World War I era of British and French colonial control, when most of the boundaries that now separate the Arab world into small nations were drawn by foreigners.
It includes the establishment of Israel, which is perceived as the most blatant Western project to implant a non-Muslim nation in the middle of Islam.
The United States enters the picture as the guarantor of Israel's existence, as the dominant Western power, as the ally of numerous Arab leaders including the Saudi royal family, the Mubarak government of Egypt and others, all of which Al-Qaida views as illegitimate in part because of their acceptance of U.S. support and protection.
The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq after the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War were also portrayed as concrete symbols of U.S. enmity toward Islam and determination to control and exploit the oil-rich region.
While the Bush administration portrays Al-Qaida as motivated by its hatred of freedom and democracy, Al-Qaida and its sympathizers see themselves as pursuing the end of U.S. domination of the region on the path to its Islamist goal.
Not all Muslims share Al-Qaida's ultimate vision of one big religiously ruled nation. But many share the belief that their region is under U.S. domination. By attacking the United States, Al-Qaida gains support. If the U.S. response makes its influence over the region more blatant, the more easily Al-Qaida gains followers.
Based on the history of successful anti-colonial insurgencies across several continents during the 20th century, Grow argues, Al-Qaida's goal before 9/11 was to draw the U.S. deeper into the Mideast in order to unite the population behind the goal of driving them out.
He believes Osama Bin Laden took lessons from a number of successes -- the Irish in driving out the British, China against Japan during World War II, Algeria against France, and Vietnam against first France, then the United States.
The revolutionaries used acts of terror to provoke a military response that would unite the local population against the imperial power. The insurgency then would become self-sustaining and gradually impose such high costs that the outside power eventually would decide the costs of continuing the struggle outweighed the benefits.
"It's very hard for the big power to avoid falling into this trap," Grow said, but the response to Al-Qaida suggests that U.S. policy ignored the lessons of all previous conflicts.
"I'm not saying that any use of force in response to Al-Qaida would be wrong," he said. But to defeat a popular insurgency, the military response has to be subordinate to addressing the social and political arguments that give the insurgency its popular appeal.
U.S. tanks and troops occupying Muslim nations, tromping around killing civilians, is exactly what Al-Qaida hoped for, Grow said. The effect is to unite more and more Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims around the goal of driving the Americans out.
Grow believes most Iraqis won't be convinced that the Americans are there to liberate them or improve their lives. The current interim government is tainted by the perception that Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is the agent of U.S. influence. The elections, if they are held, will be tainted by the U.S. role in organizing and supervising them.
From the time the U.S. military invaded Iraq, the opportunity to craft a balanced strategy was lost. "It's a lose-lose proposition now," Grow said. "I don't see any way that the cost to the United States, in dollars, in attention and in lives, can be reduced for the next 10 years. It becomes a question of how many American kids we are willing to sacrifice."

 

And the war continues to rage in Iraq........

Daily bombings in Baghdad, we leveled Fallujah, they moved to 6 other cities and killed all of the Iraqi Police. Whats that? Another 12,000 troops needed in Iraq? 82nd Airborne? Aren't we supposed to save them for crisis situations? Seems like we are so stetched now, we are leaving our flank open. 8000 illegals crossing our southern border EVERY DAY? Surely, none of them can be Al Queda.......Osama? Has anyone seen Osama???? Iran developing Nukes, but we are so bogged down all we can do is shake our fist at them. And they laugh, because they know that we have taken out a NON MUSLIM leader and the coming elections will be won by an Islamic government. What luck for the Iranians! Where's all of that cheap oil? Burning in pipelines throughout the Iraqi country.....

In 2 years, when we are still bogged down in the sh1thole country, I bet 50% of these Bush suppporters deny that they ever voted for him.....

 

Bet you're wrong !

 

Wonder if they would let me over there with my atv and a sniper gun?? I agree with you BALDMIKE!! Bush will get us out of this war, it will take time. For us here at home give our troops support. God Bless U.S.A.!!

 

What war are you talking about?

 

"Bush will get us out of this war"

You put a lot of faith in a man that obviously had no plan. He took the world's greatest military an bogged it down in a lousy country, with a history of rebelling against foreign armies. The best possible outcome he can hope for is an Islamic Fundamentalist govt. stepping in to take control. Lose/Lose situation......