"War is hell"- General Sherman
"There are no good wars, only necessay and unecessary ones" -R. W. Foster
I have to speak out on the whole war on terror debate. This is not to discuss whether we could have or should have conducted foreign policy differently 20-30 or even 50 years ago. We cannot change the past, and many things that were done in decades gone by may seem underhanded to us today, but were quite progressive in their times. trying to play couls-woulda-shoulda is counter productive, and wastes time and energy that could be devoted to answering the question of "What do we need to do now?"
First, lets examine what our enemies beleive. If they kill an infidel, their place in heaven is assured, because they are expected to spread Islam throughout the world until Islam is all that remains. (People think Christianity is extreme, but a True Christian cannot kill someone who refuses to beleive in Christ, because that person MAY come to change their mind one day, and killing them deprives them that chance at salvation!) Notice I said TRUE Christians. I also did NOT say that there was not a case for self sefence (although by martyrdom, one can preserve the bad actors chance at salvation) or defending innocents against threats. I have seen very few Christians truly distance themselve from abortion clinic bombings, and even fewer Muslims decry acts of terror. I see Muslims who denounce the 9/11 attacks and then turn around and hold telethons to raise money to support the families of suicide bobmers in Isreal, so I don't know how sincere there denouncements are. Suffice it to say that at the very minimum, the Wahabi extremests are dedicated to wiping out every last man woman and child who refuses to convert to Islam! They are not jealous of our freedom, they don't want to be free to view porn, drink alcohol, or worship any God other than Allah.

What do we beleive? That we can solve any conflicts by opening channels of communication, and talking through our differences and that all people should be llowed to speak out as they wish, worship (or not) as they wish, and that all people are basically good. We are civilized people who would rather do without than see the citizens of another country ravaged by war, much less see our sons, daughters and loved ones go away to return in body bags.

The tactics of the enemy- They utilize guerilla warfare, attack "soft" (undefended) targets, target innocent civilians to attain shock value, attack using kamikaze tactics because most defences rely on the attacker having SOME form of self-preservation instinct. The Palestinians (one of the longest lived groups spawning terrorists) lobbied for inclusion in peace talks with Israel, until they were included, despite never acknowledging Israels right to simply exist. In 1999, the Israeli government conceded to 95% of the Palestinian demands, and Yasser Arafat walked away from the negotiations! This illustrates the TOTAL lack of willingness to compromise by the other side, they don't want peace, they want "all or nothing" they will negotiate, accept what you give up, and then continue their attacks until they get the rest. DO NOT make the mistake of thinking these people will ever negotiate in good faith! Remember the Muslims who died in the WTC and Pentagon Bombings? The enemy has no qualms about killing some of their own to get us! They beleive that the collateral casualties are either going to heaven with the martyrs, or were not true beleivers for dealing with infidels. They beleive that there are no borders to Islam, and they will operate wherever and whenever they can to attack the "infidels"

Our tactics- We have spent millions developing weapons to minimize or eliminate collateral damage. We can target one building in a block and do limited damage to the surrounding structures. We hesitate to attack enemy personnel because they hide in religeous shrines that we don't want to destroy for risk of offending others. We perform self-flagellation over any reports of maltreatment of our enemies. We try to end a conflict with the minimum casualties on either side.
We beleive that our emenies are simply jealous of our freedom. We try not to involve ant nations that have not directly provoked us.

Are you starting to see some serious problems? We are talking about trying to reason with people who will not reason with us. Agree to dissagree with people who will not tolerate dissent. To ostricize those who want to expunge us.

Should we have gone into Iraq before we settled Afghanistan? Let me ask you, in a fist fight, do you ignore your opponents left hand until you stop him from throwing rights at you? This is more akin to ignoring right jabs, hooks, and anything from the left, until you stop the right crosses! the lefts would be the terrorist attacks in Isreal! It is another head of the SAME beast! We have to stop viewing diffferent groups of Muslim extremists as separate entities, because many Al Queada operative have close and direct ties to other organizations. Think of labor unions (no, I'm not equating unions with terrorists, just the organizational structure) The IBEW (electricians) may not go on strike, but the Teamsters do. They are both part of the same AFL-CIO! Al Queda may not be the PLO, but you can bet they have ties! In spite of what the 911 Commision says, I can't beleive that the Iraqis had a training facility with an airliner fuselage in it, that defectors said was NOT used for training internal security forces, but outsiders who were kept away from troops stationed at that base, for no reason that was not detrimental to us. By going into Iraq, we didn't cease what we were doing in Afghanistan, but just started dodging the hooks in addition to the jabs. Now we need to start thinking about those lefts!

Well Said CW....

But what about Iran? their more of a threat to us then Iraq ever was?? and don't forget about NK...

Let's just try and settle this fist fight I'll buy you beers for the rest of the evening?? ok how bout the rest of the yr? ok, alright, here's my CC number I'll supply your beer for the rest of your life "Hows That?"

Let's just close up our Boarders and secure our Nation first?? THEN go after these bad guy's.. and we'll let the UN lead the charge... Then we'll get'em all...

we also need to send Lawyers to Gitmo because those Terrorists Have rights to ya know!!! don't worry about it the American Taxpayers can foot the bill...

Hog

My point, Hog, is to let the reader come to the conclusion for themselves that if we do nothing, we're dead! If the American public ever realizes that this is more of a life and death struggle (literally) than we had with Hitler, Tojo, or King George, then maybe we'll stop wringing our hands over whether or mot we need to be in Iraq, or exit strategies, and figure out which threat to go after next. And once that is decided, we can go after it without trying to second guess ourselves into abandoning that one prematurely too!

Yes Sir, I understood your point entirely...

the thing is CW.. some folks on here have already made up their minds to these issue's and would rather bump their gums at how stupid going into Iraq was and how rotten GWB was for doing so... without a clue in the world as to how deep an issue this all is.. whats the b!tchin complaints going to be when we start dropping Iron in Iran?? or Syria... although we haven't yet and some of these complainers use (How Come Iraq and not Iran) as their soapbox.. whats their complaints going to be when the War on Terror is extended into these other two nations?? because if we fail at the resolve of the War on Terror... these folks don't relize they'll be buying Donuts for these Terrorist groups in the AM's....

Hog

i support our troops deployed all OVER this whacky planet and believe that they are doing their best wherever they are sent.

what i disagree with in this war is the way our own TRUE domestic enemy is screwing with a) our troops and b) the money it's taking to win these wars.

for instance, i think halliburton needs to be kicked to the curb. shame on them for bilking our treasury and cheating our troops!

am i a lefty pinko for thinking this? well, so is the US ARMY then...


Army Urged to Withhold Halliburton Pay

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon auditors urged the U.S. Army to start withholding millions of dollars in payments to Halliburton Co. until the company justified its bills, according to an Aug. 16 military document released Tuesday.

The Army is deliberating whether to hold back 15 percent of payments to Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root for a major troop support contract in Iraq. Federal acquisition regulations permit the sanctions on contracts that don't have properly supported billing estimates.

Various government agencies are investigating several aspects of Halliburton's work in Iraq, including allegations of kickbacks by Kuwaiti subcontractors and improper charges totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

"It is clear to us KBR will not provide an adequate proposal until there is a consequence," said the Defense Contract Audit Agency in a memo to Army Field Support Command, which manages the contract. The memo was released by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

The Army should decide whether to proceed with the penalties, estimated at $60 million, within the next two weeks, according to the Army's latest estimates.

The memo describes systemic issues with the company's cost estimates. In the case of one $4 billion order, "each successive update continues to be significantly deficient," the memo said.

Halliburton reiterated Tuesday its belief that there is no legal justification to withhold payments. The company also said the DCAA is advisory and has no authority to determine whether Halliburton's systems for substantiating costs is adequate.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall wrote in an e-mail that their system that produces proposals and estimates works well.

"We have and will continue to demonstrate this fact to our customer and the agency which does have the authority to make judgments on our systems," Hall wrote.

The Pentagon auditors said they tried to work with Kellogg Brown & Root staff, but have met with resistance. The company said it intends to provide supporting data during negotiations, rather than earlier in the process, the memo said.

"We believe this approach is unacceptable," the memo said.

Halliburton's subsidiary submitted about $13 billion in price proposals to the government between March 2003 and May 2004, according to auditing figures. An audit of $4.3 billion in specific logistics program orders found that unsupported costs made up almost half of the total amount, the memo said.

Democrats have criticized the government's ties to Halliburton, saying the firm received special treatment because of its former chief executive, Vice President ****** Cheney.

In a letter Tuesday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Waxman said the Pentagon hasn't reacted properly to Halliburton's poor billing practices. He urged the Defense Department to end its "special treatment" of the firm.

"Despite the company's record of overbilling and shoddy accounting, the Defense Department has awarded Halliburton large new contracts and repeatedly waived the application of federal procurement regulations," Waxman said.

The Army has postponed holding back payments on the troop support contract for several months already, according to Waxman and the Defense auditors' memo. Separately, the Army Corps of Engineers already is withholding payments on a smaller contract regarding Iraqi oil fields.

Cav

Agree with you on Haliburton...thieves!

Charlie

I am all for the war on terror that was first declared not by W, but rather by President Clinton in an April 1996 address at George Washington University. The same war on terror that was ignored by Bush until after 9/11. The Clinton administration identified Bin Laden and Al Qeada as the highest danger to America. Bush ignored this as well and considered them as secondary to Saddam and Iraq, believing Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who subscribed to the long discredited Iraq conspiracy theory of a woman named Laurie Mylroie.

The most damaging thing about the Bushies' adventuring in Iraq is it is NOT fighting terrorism. The terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were in Afganistan until our lack of action and "war on the cheap" allowed them to slip away. We had all the main actors in the World Trade Center bombing in one place at one time and Bush went off to Iraq and let them escape. Now we will have to track them down all over the world. IF we can ever free up any troops from fighting in Iraq for the next ten years.

Iraq was an unnecessary war that opened up an unimportant additional front that has stretched our forces too thin to effectively fight anything but a "holding action on terror". I want a war on terror.

I want Bin Laden's head on a platter. I want all his aides and the attack planners in prison. I want Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the planet. We should have done this in Afganistan. We COULD have done this in Afganistan. We STILL MAY BE ABLE to do this in Afganistan.

Unfortunately I am not going to get what I want because, according to former National Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke,
"Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy (9/11) to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq."

"Having been attacked by Al Qaeda, for us to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

You talk about people not understanding the complexity of the issue. Then your simplistic answer is more bombs, more invasions, unseat more governments.
Talk about not understanding an issue...

"You talk about people not understanding the complexity of the issue. Then your simplistic answer is more bombs, more invasions, unseat more governments.
Talk about not understanding an issue.." Kazama

you see what I mean CW?? read the rest of the miss informed perpetuated post from Kazama above and you will see how this whole thing gets twisted to one persons outlook on the issue... Kazama's view of the "war on terror" and his wants and what the Bush administration did or did not do...

Kazama to help you see a bit clearer History Channel just this week is running
Monday, August 23, 2004
8-10pm TARGETED: OSAMA BIN LADEN
Featuring former and current CIA agents, Special Forces soldiers, Washington insiders, and best-selling authors such as Mark Bowden ("Black Hawk Down"), Steve Coll ("Ghost Wars"), Phillip Smucker ("Al Qaeda's Great Escape"), and Simon Reeve ("The New Jackals"), we take a 2-hour groundbreaking look at the hunt for the world's #1 archenemy. Filmed in 10 countries around the world, we trace bin Laden's rise through the Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan to his present incarnation.

Which President who didn't want to give the order.. not once but about 5 different times leading up to the elections of 2000.. so don't give me non of your hog wash about this being a Bush problem (It is now and he's dealing with it Very Effectivly)... and focus on Iraq rather then Afganistan... Wake up and smell the Coffee... the United States Military is working the issue in both Iraq and Afganistan and Phillipines and anywhere else for right now that these Terrorist cells are trying to set up a foothold in...

at least you don't have it in your back yard huh??
Wednesday, August 25, 2004

http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?NetwCode=THC 

8-9pm Tyrants on Trial Saddam Hussein

9-10pm Saddam Hussein: Butcher of Baghdad
Profile of the former Iraqi leader. Focuses on his bloody rise to power and includes an interview with the man who "doubled" for Saddam's brutal son and defected. Includes a look at the 2003 Iraqi War and the hunt for and ultimate capture of Saddam.

Wednesday, September 8, 2004
http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?fromYear=2004&fromMonth=8&fromDate=8&NetwCode=THC&timezone=1&View=Prime& 
10-12am The 9/11 Commission Report
Released July 22, 2004, one of the most significant findings of the 9/11 Commission Report is that a number of opportunities existed prior to that tragic day to disrupt the plot. The 500-plus page document by a bipartisan federal panel was the result of months of research and testimony that was spurred on by families of the victims and largely opposed by the Bush Administration. We learn about the findings from those who testified, those who wrote the report, and from the Commissioners themselves


Hog

The same war on terror that was ignored by Bush until after 9/11. The Clinton administration identified Bin Laden and Al Qeada as the highest danger to America.
-Clinton? oh you mean the guy who turned down an offer by the Sudanese Government to hand Bin Laden over back in about '96! About the time they decided he was a threat? YEAH, SURE, RIGHT!

The most damaging thing about the Bushies' adventuring in Iraq is it is NOT fighting terrorism. The terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were in Afganistan until our lack of action and "war on the cheap" allowed them to slip away. We had all the main actors in the World Trade Center bombing in one place at one time and Bush went off to Iraq and let them escape. Now we will have to track them down all over the world. IF we can ever free up any troops from fighting in Iraq for the next ten years.
-Yeah, like we have to hunt down Al Zarqawi, where did he go? OH YEAH, IRAQ!

Iraq was an unnecessary war that opened up an unimportant additional front that has stretched our forces too thin to effectively fight anything but a "holding action on terror". I want a war on terror.
-No you want another Vietnam, a war where the enemy respects no borders, but we do, where when we begin to get the upper hand, the bad guys cross over into a Laos, Cambodia, a Syria, an Iran, and we cannot persue because we would infringe upon that nations sovereignty!

I want Bin Laden's head on a platter. I want all his aides and the attack planners in prison. I want Al Qaeda wiped off the face of the planet. We should have done this in Afganistan. We COULD have done this in Afganistan. We STILL MAY BE ABLE to do this in Afganistan.
-I'm sorry, did I miss something? did we withdraw from Afghanistan, did we stop looking for Bin Laden? Gee, Do you think we ought to ignore every othyer country and every other terroerist until we capture THIS ONE?

Unfortunately I am not going to get what I want because, according to former National Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke,
"Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy (9/11) to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq."
-No possible clue why, failure to live up to the terms of a cease fire signed TWELVE YEARS AGO! Clinton had neither the guts nor the character to drag these rats back to the bargaining table by force after they started reneging on the agreements they made, and aftre a certain number of years, our "Friends and Allies" started doing business under the table with the Iraqis that they didn't want to see dry up if the sanctions ended, the trade was too lucrative, so they would NEVER have supported what we did.


"Having been attacked by Al Qaeda, for us to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."
-Except that Japan was a sovereign state, with a known location. Lets take an enemy that HAS no state, and decides to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor, with support from Mexico from Bolivia, do we give mexico a pass? then why shouldn't anyone with an axe to grind not just fund some fring group and let them do their dirty work, and we won't hold them accountable?

You talk about people not understanding the complexity of the issue. Then your simplistic answer is more bombs, more invasions, unseat more governments.
Talk about not understanding an issue...
-Oh I understand! I'm one of those who wont be seeing as much of my children as I would like because I'll be over there, I'm one of those who has friends on the USS Cole, I served on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, I work with the Marines, and have a buddy who was on his way to Beiruit when the Marine barracks was bombed. Shall I discuss the USS Vincennes?, The USS Princeton? Khobar Towers?, the African Embassies? Let's discuss understanding. Welcome to the War on Terrorism, Clinton didn't declare it in 1996, it's been going on since the early eighties, and we JUST got permission to shoot back!

Excuse me, I left out the USS Stark!

"Welcome to the War on Terrorism, Clinton didn't declare it in 1996, it's been going on since the early eighties, and we JUST got permission to shoot back!"

CW, you nailed it!

C-dub. My brutha in arms. Well said.

Ditto what Macs said..

Well Said CW...


Hog

The phrase "war on terror" was first officially spoken by Clinton, not Bush. Yes. we have been attacked by terrorists since the eighties and earlier.

Ronald Reagan did not retaliate for the murder of 278 US Marines in Beirut and violated US policy by trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra scandal. George HW Bush did not retaliate for the Libyan murder of 259 people on Pan Am 103, and left Saddam Hussein in power, forcing the US to leave a large military force in Saudi Arabia.

Geoge W Bush's former Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke writes,
"Bill Clinton, who identified terrorism as the major post-Cold War threat and acted to improve our counterterrorism capabilities, who (little known to the public) quelled anti-American terrorism by Iraq and Iran and defeated an al Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia, but who, weakened by continued political attack, could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the (terrorism) threat."

"In recent years Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bin Laden and habd him over in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial."

"The only slivers of truth in this fable are a)the Sudanese government was denying its support terrorism in the wake of the UN sanctions (ed. against Sudan) and b) the CSG (ed. Counterterrorism Security Group of which Clarke was a member) had initiated informal inquiries with several nations about incarcerating bin Laden, or putting him on trial. There were no takers. Nonetheless, had we been able to put our hands on him then we would have gladly done so... The facts about the supposed Sudanese offer to give us bin Laden are that Hasan al-Turabi (ed. the fundamentalist fanatic in charge in Sudan) was not about to turn over his partner in terror to us and no actual attempt to do so ever occured."

Clinton DID give orders to shoot back.
Remember the cruise missiles he ordered launched that destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Afganistan? Do you remember your conservative condemnation of that assault? Remember "wag the dog"?

He put an end to Iraqi and Iranian terrorism against the United States by quickly acting against the intelligence services of each nation. Remember the cruise missile strike against the Iraqi intelligence buiding that killed Muammar al-Qadhafi's adopted daughter? Remember the resulting conservative condemnation because he should have tried harder through diplomatic channels?

His intervention in Bosnia is a classic example of military action, with an exit plan, to defeat an al Qaeda takeover attempt, then get out.

Clinton authorized several "snatches" of bin Laden but was unable to get the Pentagon, CIA or FBI to act. The Pentagon later spread false stories that they did not act because they were not given authorization.

The armed Predator drone (used so effectively later under Bush)was developed for Clinton specifically to assasinate bin Laden. The Pentagon and the CIA could not settle their squabbling over who had jurisdiction over authority to fire the missiles, and did not act.

And so much more.

You neocons need to stop watching so much television and start reading all sources of information. Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are not giving you anything remotely close to fair and balanced.

Kazama

Had Clinton put forces in there and then not run operations from the White House.. Yes we had forces on the Ground inside Afganistan and Yes Bill Clinton and his Administration would not give a go ahead because "THEY" were worried about what type public exposure this may cause after the Fact..

Thus... Kazama you and your Clinton Elite.. Caused 911 no if ands or buts about it... but then your spin of it being Bush's fault...

one things for damn sure.. Bush doesn't care about what kind of exposure he's going to get from the leftest Media or any of these country's like NK who are saying their drivel like as todays headlines... who gives a ****?? Bush doesn't and the way I see it as long as these other Terrorist run/supported Country's cannot stand GWB and or America's Policy's on the War on Terror.. We Are Winning.... and your Buddy Kerry will do what?? same as Clinton draw back the troops... not supply them... as shown in his voting records... support the UN and MAKE these troops lose their American Flag and fight for the UN.. at which the UN has shown how effective it has been... look at how many under the table deals they had with Iraq's Saddam and food for Oil program???

I don't go after fox news as my only source..
I track allot of the info as much as I can from Reliable sources open to the public..
Here's one for ya...
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp 

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=325&projectId=8 

Enjoy...
Hog

I do NOT want another Vietnam. The senario descibed perfectly fits the situation in Iraq. You have explained very well why we should not be in Iraq.

We HAVE all but pulled out of Afganistan and sent the experts who shoud be looking for bin Laden, to run around fruitlessly searching for WMAs. In the mean time the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in Afganistan while sending fighters to keep us trapped in Iraq.

Al Qeada, bin Laden, and the Taliban did, in fact, have a state in Afganistan and Iraq DID NOT support them. That's why we should have "given Iraq a pass", at least until we had al Qeada and bin Laden under control and we could decide what nation posed the next greatest threat.

We are stretched too thin to fight effectively. That's why the Taliban is gathering strength. It's not that we should not be fighting, it's just that we are fighting the battles in the wrong order. We need to take care of the most imminent danger first. Bin Laden and al Qeada not Iraq and Saddam.

Kazama

Monday, August 23, 2004
8-10pm TARGETED: OSAMA BIN LADEN

"Clinton authorized several "snatches" of bin Laden but was unable to get the Pentagon, CIA or FBI to act. The Pentagon later spread false stories that they did not act because they were not given authorization."

They had the Go-Ahead and Clinton Administration/Clinton called them off... because of the thoughts of the aftermath and how it would look...

Clinton many times could have let these people do the jobs they were told to do.. given orders to do.. and HE held them from completion

you can spew what you want... but show me Facts to your drivel...

you can see the aftermath and facts of how Bush is handling the situation from and since 911...

rehashing woulda coulda shoulda is insane... the fact of the matter is... it's being dealt with now by as I said before a Man in Office who really doesn't care what public opinion is especially from other Nations... he's steadfast on taking this fight to them on their soil not ours and it has shown....

you can flap your gums as much as you want about not liking it.. but it falls on dead ears... and puts yourself in the (L) bracket with this Neocon as you call me...

meanwhile I'll VOTE GWB and erase your vote for Kerry...;0)~~~

Hog

"We HAVE all but pulled out of Afganistan and sent the experts who shoud be looking for bin Laden, to run around fruitlessly searching for WMAs. In the mean time the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in Afganistan while sending fighters to keep us trapped in Iraq. "

Check your Intel.... We haven't pulled out of anywhere... especially Afganistan...

and I do think we need to be in Iraq.. we needed to be there 12 yrs ago... 10 yrs to late... and until Democracy can be established then our job is not finished...

from what your writing/saying... if your in a fist fight.. and you get tired your going to quit??

Son, I bet you took allot of a$$whipins growing up..
Stay on the Porch and let the big boys handle it....

Hog

I have never implied that 9/11 was Bush's fault. Simply that he chose to ignore anything that was told to him by Clinton's people.

Bush does care, desperately, about what people think. That's why he went for the grand political gesture. Protecting our harbors, increasing police budgets, implementing emergency procedures in this country is hard, dirty work.
Fighting in Afganistan is not glamorous. As Ashcroft said, "There are no big targets in Afganistan. There are in Iraq." The war in Iraq was politically calculated to win Bush votes. To show how macho and tough the whole draft dodging bunch in the White House is.

I find it hard to understand why you hold such high esteem for this bunch that refused to serve and is now overcompensating for their cowardice

Kazama.