[Rhodes22-list] Question for Brad about Iraq Information (political)

[Brad Haslett]

Wally,

It has been a long day starting at 5am and I was hoping you'd have this
thing wrapped-up by now.  I'll make my comments brief.  We went to
Afghanistan with some outside support because that is where al-Queada was
and that is who attacked us.  Based on the Soviet experience, we knew it
would be tough and it has been.  We launched an assault on Saddam because he
was a know sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East with a history of
actually using WMD.  We were not joined by the usual Western allies because
they either had financial ties to Iraq or political liabilities. We achieved
quick and easy victory over Saddam.  What has proven far more difficult is
securing the peace.  Now your attitude is that we should have paid more
attention to Afghanistan.  Why, because al-Queada is there?  Well, al-Queada
is now in Iraq and that is where we will fight them.  Frankly, I don't give
a shit (sorry Dave) about who wins whatever office the next political
season.  Few of them have any sense of history anyway.  We have seen this
cycle of Muslim fanaticism at least three times in world history.  As the
author of the piece I posted last night said, we Americans have a way of
postponing the inevitable until the last moment.  I remain confident that we
will prevail again, or at least I hope we do.  For those of you with
amnesia, here is the indoctrination we incurred for years on Saddam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finstapundit%2Ecom%2Farchives2%2F004634%2Ephp

Brad


On 7/11/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brad,  Come on man.....Why, when, and how did Al Quaeda get into Iraq? You
> can blame that on us! The fluff is suggesting the limited view point of
> the
> author is the solution. He seems to think (and I guess you do as well)
> that
> the only way to stand up to  Al Quaeda was /is to attack Iraq, The guy is
> a
> dim wit. There were/are other options and to say differently shows limited
> thinking.. To me that is fluff. Actually I think it is stupid.
>
> How to fight Al Queada and fanatical Muslim terrorists? This is not an
> easy
> mission....I have said over and over again that we should have stayed in
> Afghanistan and attacked our foes there. I have stated over and over again
> that going (nearly) alone was doomed from the start. Staying is just as
> doomed.  It seems now that we are stuck in Iraq folks just want to cave in
> and say we are here and thats that!. Well we are not stuck in Iraq we are
> there by choice..... It was foolish to go in and just as foolish to stay.
> It
> will look bad for us but  we created this mess and we will have to live
> with
> that.
>
> I would exit  Iraq and use the funds saved  to develop a meaningful
> Homeland
> Security. We need a strategy that doesn't involve blowing up countries
> that
> don't threaten our National Security. Use some of the money to improve
> border and harbor security.  The terrorists don't have long range missiles
> so any attack most likely will be launched from within our borders. It
> seems
> the various agencies are still not linked on a common database. I would
> rather us spend the money improving our safety rather than pissing it away
> in Iraq. We can do much to improve our own security without attacking
> anyone. We need to continue improving and step up our intelligence.
>
> We also have to try diplomacy. Even though we have made things worse it is
> still may not be too late.  We need to leverage any relationship left with
> existing Muslim allies to help solve this problem. Obviously any chance of
> lasting peace will have to include a resolution in Israel. No easy task
> and
> indeed it may be impossible. Our current tactics are making the job harder
> not easier. We need to quit beating our head against the wall.
>
> I am dismayed at the limited amount of time Rice and Bush spend on trying
> to
> build relationships with existing Middle Eastern allies. We are losing
> allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey who were with us for Desert Storm but
> passed on Round 2. We need help from Muslim allies and use diplomacy will
> send a better message than war. Use trade, aid or sanctions. . I am in no
> way suggesting that we negotiate with Al Queada.
>
> We have sent a message to the Muslim world but i am not sure if it is the
> message we meant to send .We were thinking we would be welcomed. We were
> not. Other Muslim countries viewed the US as a war monger ignoring the UN
> and attacking their Muslim brothers and sisters. These are the very same
> countries WE need to drive the initiative for change. The message can not
> come solely from us. To think we alone can change these people is naive
> and
> ignores history.
>
> Now what if diplomacy fails and the terrorists attack us or our allies? To
> me that is a cause for war and we declare war. I think people would be
> surprised at how different the country acts when war is declared. Study
> history if you don't believe me. If we go to war i am of the opinion that
> we
> use every means necessary including our weapons of mass destruction. But
> war
> should be the last resort.
>
> Wally
>
> On 7/10/07, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wally,
> >
> > Could you please explain the fluff?  While you're doing some "higher
> > level"
> > thinking, what is your solution to Al Quaeda?  Should we
> negotiate?  Give
> > me
> > their cell phone number and I'll ask them myself what they want!  Al
> > Quaeda
> > IS in Iraq.  What is the cost of leaving them there?  That IS the
> > question,
> > Sir!  How they got there or who is responsible is immaterial at this
> point
> > (oh shit, I used another accounting term).  What is the alternative
> > solution?  Inquiring minds want to know!
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > On 7/10/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed, Talk about fluff...the article posted is full of it. I am not sure
> > if
> > > people are really stupid enough to fall for such a limited viewpoint.
> > What
> > > you and the author don't get.... It is possible to recognize both the
> > > folly
> > > in attacking Iraq AND  that Al Quaeda and like want to kill us. It is
> > not
> > > one or the other....some of us have the ability to think at a higher
> > level
> > > and look for different solutions to a problem. It is also possible to
> > > recognize that we are doing some good in Iraq while questioning the
> > cost.
> > > .
> > >
> > > Wally
> > >
> > > On 7/10/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brad:
> > > >
> > > > In the past few weeks, you sent several web references about
> > Iraq.  And
> > > I
> > > > have Yon's homepage from my search for his famous picture.
> > > >
> > > > Somewhere amongst the web information was a paragraph that Yon
> > reported
> > > > about what U. S. surge forces found in an area that had been
> recently
> > > > under
> > > > control of Al Qaeda in Iraq.  That paragraph is being widely
> reported
> > > > about
> > > > on certain media the last couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > That paragraph discussed the way Al Qaeda was treating local Iraqis
> in
> > > > areas
> > > > that they controlled.  Specifically just killing families occupying
> > > houses
> > > > that they wanted and the incident where they invited a family to
> > dinner
> > > > and
> > > > served them their 11 year old son baked like a pig with an apple
> > stuffed
> > > > in
> > > > his mouth.
> > > >
> > > > I saw the aforementioned paragraph, but can no longer find it.  By
> > > chance
> > > > do
> > > > you have the web site where it is posted?
> > > >
> > > > Ed K
> > > > Greenville, SC, USA
> > > > Addendum:
> > > >
> > > > Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
> > > > By Paul Marek
> > > > FrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2006
> > > >
> > > > I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to
> > World
> > > > War
> > > > Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked
> him
> > > how
> > > > many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck
> > > with
> > > > me
> > > > and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
> > > >
> > > > "Very few people were true Nazis" he said,
> > > >
> > > > "but, many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were
> too
> > > busy
> > > > to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch
> of
> > > > fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then,
> > > before
> > > > we
> > > > knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the
> > > world
> > > > had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration
> > camp
> > > > and
> > > > the Allies destroyed my factories."
> > > >
> > > > We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that
> > Islam
> > > is
> > > > the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just
> want
> > > to
> > > > live in peace.
> > > >
> > > > Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely
> > > > irrelevant.
> > > > It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to
> > > > somehow
> > > > diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the
> > name
> > > of
> > > > Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in
> > > > history.
> > > > It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of
> > 50
> > > > shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically
> > > slaughter
> > > > Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually
> taking
> > > over
> > > > the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who
> bomb,
> > > > behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over
> mosque
> > > > after
> > > > mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and
> > hanging
> > > of
> > > > rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that
> the
> > > > "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and
> > > > extraneous.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live
> in
> > > > peace,
> > > > yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about
> 20
> > > > million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge
> > > > population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to
> > kill
> > > a
> > > > staggering 70 million people.
> > > >
> > > > The Average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a
> > > > warmongering
> > > > sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South
> East
> > > Asia
> > > > in an orgy of Killing that included the systematic killing of 12
> > million
> > > > Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And,
> who
> > > can
> > > > forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > majority of Rwandans were "peace loving".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View this message in context:
> > > > http://www.nabble.com/Iraq-Update-tf4048809.html#a11520997
> > > > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>