Th future of the ME is in Iraq

[igloo]

August 26, 2003, 9:00 a.m.

Only Half Done

The future is in Iraq.

hat blood is still being shed in Iraq is stated every day with calculated surprise. Voiced by the media, the Dems and our faux-allies in the U.N., the surprise is a criticism of our termination of Saddam's regime, implying falsely that we promised instant success. What these critics willfully overlook is that while we fight the remnants of Saddam's regime, we are also at war — quite literally — with Iraq's terrorist neighbors. Iraq is the stage upon which the future of the Middle East is being fought out.

The truth is more than Gen. John Abizaid said last week when he said that Iraq is the center of the global war on terrorism. Though he and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that terrorists are coming into Iraq from Syria, they both stopped short of stating the undiplomatic but terribly clear fact that the governments of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others have decided to make a stand against freedom in Iraq. In addition, the Sudan, Afghani Taliban, and Palestinian terrorists have all joined the fight. The president almost confirmed this last Friday when he said that there was a "foreign element" moving into Iraq. Sorry, Mr. President. They aren't moving into Iraq. They have been there almost since our campaign began, and more are still coming.

On April 10, Oliver North reported from the frontlines that all of the so-called "Saddam Fedayeen" being caught or killed by the Marines, not one of them was Iraqi. All were Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Afghanis, and Sudanese. Hezbollah from Lebanon and Syria were there by the hundreds, and more were coming in by the day. Ansar-al-Islam, the Iraqi terrorists known to be linked to al Qaeda (and among whom are Moroccans, Iraqis, Jordanians, and others) were also there, and were being reinforced continuously. Three days later, and weeks before the president declared the major military action over, a Marine was killed at a checkpoint near Baghdad by a terrorist attacker. The attacker, who was also killed in the incident, was found to be carrying a Syrian identification card. As it was then, so it is now.

It is time to remind ourselves that the Iraq campaign is not a war unto itself. It is a chapter — certainly the most important so far — in the war on terrorism. Iraq holds great promise for its people and the whole Middle East. The promise of freedom for Iraqis is dependent on two things. First, Iraq's final escape from the brutality of Saddam's regime will only be achieved by Saddam's capture or provable death. Second, it is also dependent upon the defeat of Iraq's terrorist neighbors.

None of the despotisms that are among Iraq's neighbors — Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria — can continue if freedom blossoms in Iraq. So those governments are actively involved in funding, supplying, and reinforcing the terrorists and remnants of Saddam's regime fighting us in Iraq. Iraq cannot be free, and its people finally liberated, unless and until we end the interference of those governments.

The mere thought of further American action in the Middle East gives the Deaniebopper Democrats a case of the vapors. They sing the same song as the EUnuchs and the U.N., who argue that for us to even consider taking further action proves our arrogance and colonial ambitions. They accuse us of wanting to remake the map of the Middle East to suit ourselves. There are three answers to that. The first is: baloney. We are not now, and have never been, a colonial power. Never — from WWI France to 2003 Iraq — have we tried to keep or exploit for our own purposes any nation we have freed from oppression. The second answer is that we are not about remaking maps. The Brits, Russians, Italians, and French have more than once remade the map of the Middle East for precisely those purposes, and created the environment in which we now have to fight. Third, and most important, is that we have no choice but to end the threat of terrorism from these nations.

Colin Powell went to Syria in May, and extracted promises from Bashar Assad that the terrorist union hall that Damascus has become would be closed down. Before Powell's aircraft reached the end of its takeoff run, Assad was backpedaling. Only Foggy Bottom could be surprised that none of Assad's promises were kept. Now, according to Israel's ambassador to the U.S., the bomb that blew up the U.N. mission in Baghdad last week was made in Syria and smuggled across the border. Syria is one headquarters of Hezbollah, which has more American blood on its hands than any terrorist organization other than al Qaeda. Is there any reason why we should refrain from taking whatever action is necessary to demolish the Hezbollah organization everywhere — from the Lebanese border with Israel to downtown Damascus? If there is, I am unaware of it.

The same goes for the other terrorist organizations in the area, and the governments that fund, supply, and turn them to their own purposes. The current choice that these governments have made is to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq. If Iraq can be turned into another kakistocracy of mullahs, then the despotisms of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have nothing to fear. They will not permit a free Iraq, and will continue their subversive and violent intervention unless we stop it.

In theory, some of those governments should be vulnerable to diplomatic pressure. But that will surely fail for the same reasons that diplomacy failed against Saddam. If the West were to stand united against terrorism and the nations that support it, they could — by intense, active covert operations — choke the economies of Syria and Iran, destabilize their regimes, and bring them down. Even Saudi Arabia would not be immune. But the West is anything except united, and the same nations that made a shambles of the Security Council will do so again and again. By refusing to stand against these terrorist regimes, they will again remove the diplomatic option.

Given that reality, there is little reason to wait to pursue what other options we have. A military action against Syria would make the Iraqi "elite" Republican Guard look like the Wehrmacht. It wouldn't last a week. Demolishing the terrorists there would be a big step. Iran is a much bigger problem. Its soldiers can fight and we will — unless we can bring about a regime change there by covert means — have to fight them sooner or later. Global terrorism will go on as long as the mullahs rule Iran. Saudi Arabia will be the last to fall. Its dedication to terrorism runs as deep as its oil wealth and its international support — bought over the years — remains so strong even we have not yet publicly called them what they are, the bankers and farmers of terrorism.

Our media, supporting the usual suspects of the left, are running the "quagmire" play from their Vietnam playbook. This time they have plausible grounds to say what they are saying. Vietnam became a quagmire because we refused to face the facts that North Vietnam couldn't fight without massive Soviet and Chinese, which they got. We didn't face those facts, and lost. In Iraq, we will face a quagmire if we refuse to deal with the nations that we are fighting there. The Saddamite remnants wouldn't last very long without their allies who have taken the field against us. These nations are the principal problem in Iraq. They are doing what the Taliban did in Afghanistan, without yet achieving the massive number of American casualties al Qaeda caused on 9/11.

The president said, way back on September 20, 2001, that the nations who support terrorism must choose to be with us or against us. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Sudan, and others have not only chosen to be against us, but to actively engage in the terrorists war against freedom in Iraq. We cannot win against terrorism, we cannot liberate Iraq, until we deal with these nations as their choice demands. We are half done in Iraq. We will never be done in Iraq until we finish the job in Teheran, Damascus, and Riyadh.

[marksimons]

this is what we were worried about.

US EUROPEANS HAVE SEEN THIS SHIT BEFORE WITH THE MOTHERFUCKING NAZIS.

and this article is a piece of shit.

the arguments weak.

"Never — from WWI France to 2003 Iraq — have we tried to keep or exploit for our own purposes any nation we have freed from oppression."

WHAT THE FUCK?

okay, so what about REPRESSING NATIONS, fucking them over, undermining democracies.

jesus fucking christ.

just wait.

another big terroist attack.

martial law in the US.

police state.

*scratchy scratch*

c-c-c-c-c-c-can y-y-y-y-y-you say f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-fascist state?

"fascism - a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism... "

1980 definition of fascism by Webster's New World Dictionary.

apparently by 1990 the bit about private economic enterprise was left out.

[acmatos]

you make no sense

[marksimons]

neither does bush...

perhaps I should make it clear.

America is turning into a fasist state.

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

neither does bush...

perhaps I should make it clear.

America is turning into a fasist state.

[sassa]

Originally posted by marksimons

neither does bush...

perhaps I should make it clear.

America is turning into a fasist state.

it's not a democracy, that is for sure. more like an elite oligarchy running things. scary.......

but inevitable. everything we are going through, mankind has managed to go through in the past. only this time, the environment and the future of the world is really at stake. we've really managed to screw things up for ourselves. we should be proud of what we have accomplished.

i don't feel bad when people tell me they don't want to bring children into such a fucked up world...cannot blame them at all. there is absolutely nothing to look forward to. the world is getting worse, not better.

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

it's not a democracy, that is for sure. more like an elite oligarchy running things. scary.......

but inevitable. everything we are going through, mankind has managed to go through in the past. only this time, the environment and the future of the world is really at stake. we've really managed to screw things up for ourselves. we should be proud of what we have accomplished.

i don't feel bad when people tell me they don't want to bring children into such a fucked up world...cannot blame them at all. there is absolutely nothing to look forward to. the world is getting worse, not better.

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

you're so predictable, igloo

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

you're so predictable, igloo

:blah:

[skince55]

Originally posted by sassa

you're so predictable, igloo

and I suppose you are not??? Are you going to tell me to stop ruining the thread with my bullshit or better yet the classic...

[igloo]

Originally posted by skince55

and I suppose you are not??? Are you going to tell me to stop ruining the thread with my bullshit or better yet the classic...

[acmatos]

Originally posted by sassa

it's not a democracy, that is for sure. more like an elite oligarchy running things. scary.......

but inevitable. everything we are going through, mankind has managed to go through in the past. only this time, the environment and the future of the world is really at stake. we've really managed to screw things up for ourselves. we should be proud of what we have accomplished.

i don't feel bad when people tell me they don't want to bring children into such a fucked up world...cannot blame them at all. there is absolutely nothing to look forward to. the world is getting worse, not better.

don't jump, sassa!

You can try to convince some of us that the world is going to shit, but it's simply not true. And even if it were, it would definitely not be our fault.

[sassa]

Originally posted by acmatos

don't jump, sassa!

You can try to convince some of us that the world is going to shit, but it's simply not true. And even if it were, it would definitely not be our fault.

care to explain why?

[acmatos]

Originally posted by sassa

care to explain why?

there are many reasons, economic, social, etc..

you keep referring to this elite oligarchy. Who are they? and how exactly are they running things?

[sassa]

Originally posted by acmatos

there are many reasons, economic, social, etc..

you keep referring to this elite oligarchy. Who are they? and how exactly are they running things?

care to elaborate a bit more than that?

check out the people in congress and the senate. then check out their family trees. then check out their common interests, where they hold stock, what they have in common in terms of issues. you'll know what i mean then.

[acmatos]

Originally posted by sassa

care to elaborate a bit more than that?

check out the people in congress and the senate. then check out their family trees. then check out their common interests, where they hold stock, what they have in common in terms of issues. you'll know what i mean then.

that's not really true though because, despite their affiliations, these people still have to get re-elected every 2-6 yrs. So if people don't like what they are doing they don't have to vote for them.

The reality is that the world is really better off today that it was even when this country was established.

For example, people have more food than ever b4 (a huge portion of this country is obese!) Obesity is not a good thing, but people used to starve to death. Our life expectancy has increased dramatically, due to healthier diets and medical advances. You can get from the US to Europe in 5 hrs on a plane instead of spending a month at sea.

Some people used to throw prisoners and slaves into arenas with wild animals and watch them get ripped apart, cheering like it if were the SuperBowl. Countries used to go to war and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, now we have daily updates about every single casualty.

The fact that we can walk down the street and see people from all over the world and not freak out says a lot. Believe it or not, there are actually more trees in the US than there were a hundred years ago.

The internet has allowed information to travel all across the globe in a matter of seconds. We would never even be having this conversation, unless we lived in the same neighborhood/town/city.

We have thousands of people, particularly from this country, that dedicate their lives to travelling throughout the world helping the sick and the needy.

The list goes on and on. I won't argue that there are definitely many negative aspects to the world and this country, but it is not worse than before, and there are many more positive things going on. We all have a tendency to get caught up in the negatives. Its the good things that are easily forgotten.

[marksimons]

hmm...

things are better than they were, but not for everyone, this is the point.

things may be better than they were in america when it was founded.

well. unless you're a native american....

why do you think people are conducting a terroist acts against america?

for the fun of it?

the world is not all good, and not all bad.

america made a lot of it's wealth of the backs of the slaves. as did britain and a lot of western europe, no excuses there, and there were other things as well.

but, industrial revolution resulted in near enough slave workers in the UK, low wages, long hours, danger, child workers, abuse and no security. we sorted it. we got rid of the slave trade, as did america, somewhat reluctantly in places. remember, parts of your country were still apparthied until the 60's, and would have liked to have remained so if those in power had their way - the sort of people that bush and co. represent...

anyway.

has slavery gone away?

no, it's just moved and changed it's form a bit. look to the east, the sweatshops, the child labour and all that.

look at where america gets it's oil from, then look at political instability in those countries, co-incidence?

look at the american prison system. look at the statistics for black males in there, look at the way the drug laws contribute to this.

and people DO still starve to death. it's just not on your doorstep.

Africa - the continet that has been used and abused by most for the longest is totally fucked up because of america and europe.

look at rwanda, well over 1 million dead in about 100 days. weapons of mass destruction. machetties. a faster pace than the nazis managed.

look at the congo.

look at aids. look at the way american companies try to protect their coporate profits by not letting states manufacture cheap aids drugs.

I could go on.

but I have an exam.

sure we've got great technology, but I believe something like 2 out of 3 people on the planet have never used a phone...

sure there are great things, and we shouldn't forget that, but we should use them to change things for the better.

[sassa]

nice posts, the two of you. one thing though for acmatos: although i see what you're trying get at with people being elected every 2-6 years, hence somewhat changing the body of the senate/congress, this does not mean that the ideas, general environment, issues, or lobby groups who pressure these men and women do not change.

good examples are the JDL, NAARP, AIPAC, and NRA.