# Of course I didn't know.



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

How could I?

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?! They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.

The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes. It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens.

---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site. .......

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

Maybe someone wold like to check into this a bit further


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Thanks, DD.
Burl


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

The media isn't the only reason the American people are discouraged. We all remeber Colin Powell telling the UN about WMDs. I must admitt I fully believed what I was being told. Now it seems the reasons for war have changed so many times I'm not sure why we are there. The American people would have never supported going into Iraq if we were told our primary objective was to "free the Iraqi people".


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I guess I missed that one. Maybe you could point out a cite that claims our 
primary objective was to "free the Iraqi people". I know it has often been touted that we have freed the people of Iraq but I don't recall any official every saying that was our primary objective. I think in the case of Colin Powell he received the same faulty information that our President, Presidential hopeful John Kerry, President Clinton, Tony Blair, French President Chirac, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and the rest of the world leaders received including the United Nations. All of these leaders publicly stated there were WMD's in Iraq, that Iraq had violate all UN resolutions and that Iraq was a supporter of terrorism.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

Of course you missed it. It wasn't on your Rep. talking points. uke:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I take that to mean you have no cite or there is none. I understand..... really I do. Too bad, I'd really would like to have read about it but since it doesn't exist....oh well. uke:


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

Off the cliff lemming. You post the same thing every time. Come up with something new. You can't. Maybe you should check your fax. Listen to what they tell you. Follower.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Anybody that is stupid enough to think that Saddam had no WMDs when he used them on his own people is too stupid to understand. Mass graves mean nothing to these people.... :eyeroll:

Talk about talking points


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Great post Decoy, a buddy of mine has served to tours over there and he said the media doesn't relay 80% of the stuff good stuff that goes on over there, definitely 100% of the bad. He said we wouldn't believe half the stuff they have found buried in the sand, rapped in shrink wrap. Goldie you're just another typical lib, cut and run, we can't do it, we never should have went there, of course you all were for it when everybody was given the same evidence of WMD'S, now you use it against the admin., unfortunately you have drank some coolaid and buy into the lib crap. So much left that country in the weeks before the invasion that we can't even grasp it, the hypicrocy of the left is unbelievable. You guys are just unbelievable, one good thing comes of all this though, we get to see the libs true colors along with the rest of the nation and this will secure the conservatives another victory.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> Anybody that is stupid enough to think that Saddam had no WMDs when he used them on his own people is too stupid to understand.


Anybody stupid enough to not realize that was in the 1980s doesn't understand and shouldn't be posting on the intelligence of others. :eyeroll:



> Goldie you're just another typical lib, cut and run, we can't do it, we never should have went there


Because I'm not lockstep with Bush I'm a lib huh? Pro life, pro gun, for lower taxes, less welfare, less government.... really liberal. I guess your intelligence shines through in your post also.



> So much left that country in the weeks before the invasion that we can't even grasp it


Where's the proof?? uke:



> this will secure the conservatives another victory


The REAL conservatives never won an election. The Republican party did. :withstupid:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Come up with something new? As long as people like yourself can't answer a simple question for a cite but then turn around and make a ridiculous statement like "where's the proof", no one needs anything new. Pro life, pro gun, for lower taxes, less welfare, less government ......... yeah sure you are. See a lot of that coming from the I don't want to be identified as from the left crowd these days. In the field we call that camouflage....... What's next, gonna call me a bully? That is the buzz word this month you know. Now lets try it again...... do you have a cite or proof to support your comment


> our primary objective was to "free the Iraqi people".


 It's really a simple question that I want to read about. If not, fine but just say so.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?

*Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant. *

The press hasn't made much of Saddam's 500-ton uranium stockpile, downplaying the story to such an extent that most Americans aren't even aware of it.

But it's been reported - albeit in a by-the-way fashion - by the New York Times and a handful of other media outlets. And one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, admitted to the BBC earlier this year, "We had 500 tons of yellow cake [uranium] in Baghdad."

*Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile." *And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded.

That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the 500-ton figure emerged.

Still, experts say Saddam's massive uranium stockpile was largely benign.

*Largely?* Well, except for the 1.8 tons of uranium that Saddam had begun to enrich. The U.S. Energy Department considered that stockpile so dangerous that it mounted an unprecedented airlift operation four months ago to remove the enriched uranium stash from al Tuwaitha.

But didn't most of that enrichment take place before the first Gulf War - with no indication whatsoever that Saddam was capable of proceeding any further toward his dream of acquiring the bomb?

That seems to be the consensus. But there's also disturbing evidence to the contrary.

David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector who was hailed by the press last year for pronouncing Iraq WMD-free, shared some interesting observations with Congress this past January about goings-on at al Tuwaitha in 2000 and 2001.

"[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."
GEE I WONDER WHY??????? :eyeroll:

"Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. ... Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue."

Kay's successor, Charles Duelfer, also has confirmed that nuclear research at al Tuwaitha was continuing right up until the U.S. invasion, telling Congress in March that Saddam's scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."

One laboratory at al Tuwaitha, Duelfer said, "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development."

Still, most experts say that Iraq was nowhere near being able to produce nuclear weapons, which is a good thing, considering how much raw material Saddam had to work with.

Writing in the London Evening Standard earlier this year, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, walked his readers through a simple calculation:

"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium; you need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. *How many nuclear weapons can you build? The answer is 142." *

Fortunately for the world, Saddam didn't have the nuclear enrichment technology to convert his 500-ton uranium stockpile into weapons-grade bombmaking material.

Or did he?

After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad last year, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, had some disturbing news for coalition debriefers.   

He kept blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge, along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home - buried in the front yard - awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed. 

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," Obeidi said recently. His only other choice was death.

In his new book, "The Bomb in My Garden," the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," he writes. *"With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."*

Dr. Obeidi warned in a New York Times op-ed piece that Saddam could have restarted his nuclear program "with a snap of his fingers."

*Perhaps the 500-ton stockpile of nuclear fuel that Saddam kept at al Tuwaitha wasn't quite as benign as our media like to pretend.*
:eyeroll: 
Oh and this was all in the last few years not the 80's :withstupid:


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

"Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all - to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf."
President Bush outlines steps to help Iraq achieve freedom
United States Army War College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
May 24, 2004

Hmm... I hope this really satisfies you gohon. It was taken from whitehouse.gov. Maybe that isn't a good enough source for you but I don't really care. This is a long way from WMDs.



> Pro life, pro gun, for lower taxes, less welfare, less government ......... yeah sure you are. See a lot of that coming from the I don't want to be identified as from the left crowd these days.


I also don't care if you believe me or not. It is irrelavant. I have my own mind and won't be told what to think by a party. I'm also not going to call you a bully. That is childish. And no I didn't call you childish. I could see that coming a mile away.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I don't personally give a damn what the (publicly announced) reason or bunch of reasons may be or may have been for going into Iraq.

The fact remains ... In a War you do whatever you need to in order to gain the upper hand.

We are in a War ... the purpose of that War is to establish "Freedom and Liberty" in the Middle East, because that is our best chance at defeating the Islamic Extremist Factions in that region.

The beauty of the current situation is we now have Iran (the Mother of Islamic Fundamentalism) and Syria (Iran's strategic surrogate) surrounded.

All things (in this War) considered ... this is not a bad position to be in ...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Goldhunter, in all honesty for the President to say one of our goals now is the freedom of the people in Iraq still does not answer what you originally said. You will note that he also mentioned the defeat of a enemy and he never used the words *primary goal* for either. Without question one of the goals now is to help the people of Iraq free themselves and set up some form of Democracy. But I still know of no official that publicly claimed or stated that our *primary* reason for going into Iraq was to free the people of Iraq. For you to state that was the *primary* reason means that someone did claim that or you are simply putting your own spin on a situation you don't like. I just wanted to be clear which one it was........... I have absolutely no problem with your views as you are entitled to think they way you want and to express your views as we all are and I encourage everyone to do so. But I do have a problem when a element is added to that expression that is not true but fabricated to adjust reality.

I don't doubt for a minute that in the back of the Presidents mind was the thought of a chance to remove Saddam from power was present from the very first day he took office. He had the excuse of the violated UN resolutions from before he took office but he took no action as that was not enough for him to win the minds and heart of the people. The WMD added onto the UN resolutions were what he finally used and now that WMD's were never found he has gotten a black eye from that. However you can't call him a liar for something he actually believed as the leaders of Germany, France, Australia, Britain, and every other civilized nation received the same information and thought it to be true. NO, he may have wanted to invade Iraq all alone but he didn't lie to the American people to get us there. And as DecoyDummy has stated, the outcome of this war is to important for the sniping and undermining of the President that is presently going on. The terrorist in my opinion will never crawl back into their holes as long as they believe they can keep this country divided. They think there is a chance as long as we have internal fighting. Ho Chin Min depended on that very same strategy........it is nothing new.  Think about it, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey sitting border to border with a form of Democracy for a government sitting smack dab in the middle of the middle east. It really baffles me that so many Americans cannot see or understand the good that will come to the United States and the world for that matter if this is successful. If I'm missing something as you claim.....please explain where I'm wrong.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

What defies logic is that anyone would not want to act before WMDs were actaully used against us. I don't care if they were wrong( heavy emphasis on THEY everybody DEms Repubs FOriegn leaders ect. thought they had them and my post above proves they had uranium) about it I would rather have them find out for sure not sit and wonder until they use them on one of our cities.

:eyeroll: The THERE WAS NO WMD's whining is so tired

Next we need to hit Iran pre-emptively if they get NUkes they will give them to AL quaida


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I have my own mind too, and I know that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq, I have several friends in the military who were over there and who were persent when some of them were found. True, it was not as much as we first had information on, but then again there is a very large desert there in which this stuff could have been buried in, and we know that Saddam had advance warning of what we were going to do, in his place I would have hid the stuff. We may be looking for a long time and some of it may never be found.

And I also think that freeing the Iraqi is in itself a very good reason to be there, Saddam was an animal pure and simple, my only regret is that he was not killed in the first attacks.

huntin1


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I'll add one small (but crucial) point to what I said.

When I say our goal is to establish "Freedom and Liberty" ...

I don't want to imply it's some ultruistic mission we are attempting.

I say it because the Only, I repeat the ONLY, way anyone will "smack down" this wahabbiist menatality will be when the more "Secular Thinking" people of the Middle East discover there is a better way of life and that the "Extremist Mentality" has no place in that "better" life.

That my friends is what GWB is after.

Or so to seems to me.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Was this war called "Operation Iraqi WMD" or was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"" duhhhhhh

Goldhunter is correct. this was all politics there. If Bush would have went to the American people and said we are invading because we wanted to free the Iraqi people, then nobody would have supported it....well with the exception of Gohon because he is pro-military and a true Republican follower.

You can't see me, I am camouflaged. Just had to use a Republican buzz word! That is the Republican philosophy, if someone disagrees with what our party is doing, then they MUST be a democrat. God forbid we think on our own.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> well with the exception of Gohon because he is pro-military and a true Republican follower.


me to, go military :beer:

Gohon and I have had our disagreements but he has more common horse sense than all of you put together, and its got nothing to do with being a republican


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

.......Comments Deleted by OP..............

Naw, ain't going to do it. Live2hunt as usual your only objective is to try to get a pissing contest going so I'm removing my original answer to your post. Go play in that sandbox by yourself. Everyone else in this thread even when having harsh words with each other pretty much stay on subject and has meaning to their post. Your post on the other hand is simply childish.

Just for you though and this will most likely go right over your head as they usually do but, the term or phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom" came about as a replacement for the code name "Operation Iraqi Liberation"........ want to take a guess why it was changed?

Yes, I am pro military and proud of it.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Gohon:

We are on a politics site and you are -itching about pissing matches??

Stay on the subject? You asked Goldhunter a question, I was just replying to it. Many times you and I have strayed from the original post. Both of us are at fault on that one.

Bobm: My bad on choice of words. Gohon is all about pumping money into our miltary. I did not want to appear that I don't support our miltary.

If Liberation or Freedom was our jist of going to war so we could build the schools up, feed the hungry, and save lives, why are we not doing it in other countries?

Are we doing good things in Iraq? Yep. You put billions of dollars into a country supported by our military and you could do great things to just about any country. So how come we aren't in Columbia helping with the drug war and the gorrillas? How come we are not in Ethiopia saving hundreds of children from starvation? How come we aren't in Syria or Iran, parts of Southern Africa or North Korea? Lord knows that if we took the same approach as Iraq we could make any of those countries better off than what they were.

Maybe I am wrong here and will admit it if so, but isn't that why the terrorists are targeting us in the first place??? because we can't keep our noses out of everyone's business?? Why haven't they targeted Russia or China?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Maybe I am wrong here and will admit it if so, but isn't that why the terrorists are targeting us in the first place??? because we can't keep our noses out of everyone's business?? *Why haven't they targeted Russia or China?*


?????????

Why don't you actaully read and study the issue so you can realize how poorly informed you are.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

What's the toll up to? 100 dead or so in Russia just this passed week?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Quote:

"Maybe I am wrong here and will admit it if so, but isn't that why the terrorists are targeting us in the first place???"

You are wrong ...below is something written back at election time ... I edited out some of the party type political commentary since it isn't the point of what we are talking about. Read on if you want to know "WHY" they attack us and anyone else who gets in thier way.

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

Dictionary definition of

CALIPH ... successor of Muhammad as temporal and spiritual head of Islam.

CALIPHITE ... the office or dominion of a CALIPH

Author of the comments after "end report" is unknown.

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE 
By Larry Abraham January 29,2004

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

What you have heard is mind numbing ... but what you haven't heard is crucial.

The war against terror did not begin on September 11,2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority 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." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of it's existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in it's infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of it's early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by 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.

In the beginning, even the theology was not hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given 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 the former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading "the word" Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from 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 firmly established Islam 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 its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured in to 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, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any future territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into Sheikdoms, Emir dominated principalities and roving tribes of Nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming it's internal failures on everyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect 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.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds it's most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It's Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is known as Osama bin Ladin, the leader of the "Third Jihad" who is Wahhabi as were his 911 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. 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.

Remember "America Held Hostage"?

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 armed 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."

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia 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 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. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals.

First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam.

Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves.

Third, 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 and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's 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.

The war in 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 Hussein's 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, worldwide, 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 known 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" crowd, 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 we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, 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 determination resolve of the President himself. I also believe 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&#8230;"two steps forward, one step back".

A couple 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. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, 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.

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, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle 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. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.

********** End Report **********

Note&#8230;this was written before John Kerry had the nomination sewed up&#8230;but recent events clearly demonstrate that Kerry is going to fulfill Abraham's prediction of the Democrats calling for the U.N. and the French/Germans/Spain coalition to force the U.S. out of Iraq.

Also understand that the current 9/11 hearings are a political 'show' and Clarke's book were timed for these hearings and the campaign. And this is why Condoleezza Rice is seeking a private meeting with this commission 'tell it like it is'. The national security issues involved around 9/11 cannot be an open book to the public, and I believe we have to understand that.

This is scary stuff. President Bush and the Republicans are obviously extremely cautious in bringing this issue to the campaign because the left-leaning media and the Kerry Democratic left would call this 'racist' against Islam and a distraction for the alleged lies of WMD and our reasons for going into Iraq.

Bush correctly referred to the 'axis of evil' (Iran, Libya, Iraq and North Korea) as a pointed strategy to blunt the WMD-terrorist movement and he has been very successful in thwarting al Qaeda, despite what everyone on the left says. We are far better off without the threat from Iraq and Libya all within the last 12 months.

We are threatened in Pakistan and if Musharraf is assassinated (it's been tried several times in the past year), we can see how the militants will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, which have already spread to Iran (by a militant Islamic scientist) and if Musharraf is 'taken out' we have both Iran and Pakistan as militant Islamic power bases armed with nuclear weapons.

And let's not overlook Abraham's issue about the potential for militant Islamic states who would control 75% of the world's oil.

This is probably why Dick Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Wolfowitz are so committed to the belief that we are in this struggle for the free world as we have known it and focused on defeating the militant Islamic-al Maida's global strategy.

They skirt the core issues raised by Abraham in this article because of the political-correctness implications, but after reading this you understand what is at stake here.

Abraham clearly spells out what price that is: Victory for al Qaeda and the Islamic militancy.

Abraham's article brought all of these issues together and why it is important for us to gain this perspective and educate our friends and associates.

This is a deeply impressive, cogent, and intelligent overview of the militant Islamic movement.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

My bad. Russia is getting hit as well. I was wrong.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon is all about pumping money into our miltary


This is what I'm talking about..... you simply make up bs statements out of the blue. Show me any thread, any post, any where that I have said or indicated the stupid statement above from you. The only thing that has strayed from the subject is crap like this from you. I know you won't bring up a post of mine to back up such a comment because you can't but it will be interesting to see what bs you come up with to spin your way out. Despite what you think political debates are not about pissing matches unless ignorance is the driving factor.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

live2hunt does make some good points. Their are many countries that could use our help "are we gonna help them all"? I think the only time war is justified is if a direct threat is imposed. That is why I supported the Iraq war at first but now I am not sure. Yes good things are happining in Iraq now, and at the cost of American life. What will be our great reward. 100 more years of war with muslam extremists!!!!
live2hunt has done somthing very rare nowadays he admitted he was wrong and he seems to be open for new ideas, and thats more than I could say for most of you!!!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bore.224

The "Reward" is ... We don't have to live under Sharia Law ...

You are correct in that this war will (for all intents and purposes) go on forever. It has been going on since about the year 700AD.

It is a war which may NEVER be clearly "Won" ... but it could quickly and easily be LOST.

About all we can do is try to stuff it back in it's can for a period time, as was done in about 1100AD and again in about 1500AD ...

It's starting to seem like about every 500 years this "take over the World" mentality immerges.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Gohon wrote in a previous other post:
"we're talking about today and BTW, the average Jet fighter today cost somewhere around 80-100 million, not 10 million. I don't see money spent on hardware to protect this country as money badly spent except in those cases where congress forces the military to accept items they don't want. Do a little search and you will see that is not that uncommon. . What good is a high education if the kids have to speak Russian or Chinese or God forbid have to pray to Allah."

$80-100 million isn't pumping money into the miltary???? And that is just one jet. we didn't get into Bradley assault vehicles, tanks, ships, etc...

I asked on another post and you didn't answer it. Name another country who spends as much on the military as we do.....

Russia- Are they not our allies? Why then should we fear them?

I am 31. Don't know it all, don't claim to be. But I do question our country and it's leaders and the way they are spending "my" and "your" money. I don't feel I lean right or left. Just centered so I can see both directions.

I guess you have to be a political analysis specialist to post here.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Dont be fooled, the Russians are not our allies. They are our partner, albeit not entirely of their own free will. Their economy collopased when the socialist experiment finally failed. They needed our money, not our friendship.

Did you know that the US funds most of the Russian space program? Did you also know that all US funding is supposed to stop whenever Russia does something stupid, like say, selling Iran nuclear technology?

Special legislation had to be brought up because this very thing happened, and with our shuttle fleet non-op, we need the Russian rockets to keep our space station afloat. So no, the Russians are not our allies. They are simple participants in some of the same stuff we are.

Heck even the Chinese space program is almost completely based on purchased Russian technology. A Russian politician would sell you his wife and mother at one hell of a bargain if he thought it would help keep him under a roof for one more week.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I don't feel I lean right or left. Just centered so I can see both directions


. 
I'm sure thats how you feel, but you are so poorly informed that while I'm am certain you care about these issues most of your posts are factually inaccurate. So logically your feelings are based on those inaccuracies.
I'm not beating on you just suggesting that maybe you spend much more time studying these issues before you comment on them with such certainty.



> I guess you have to be a political analysis specialist to post here.


Nope but if you make forceful statements that just plain are factually inaccurate how can there be a reasonable discussion and down the conversation spirals.

Monies spent on defense are often portrayed as wasted by the uninformed when in fact they are an important part of our economy and the very reason we are all free. Does waste occur ? sure it does, and its our duty to be vigilant about looking over the shoulders of our politicians on this and any other part of the budget. 
Those jet fighters are the reason your kids are not answering to some communist dictator or getting beheaded by some islamic jihadist, how much you think you would be willing to pay to get them to stop cutting your head off?? 
I bet right then they would look like the bargain they are,
Freedom isn't free! or cheap either..


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Live2hunt what do you think was used to scatter the Iraqi army and soften targets so the marines could move in with so few casualties? It sure wasn't bottle rockets. Those Jets you complain about are just as important in our arsenal as anything else. As are the fighting ships, missals and even the DVD's we sent the troops for R&R. What do you think is flying cover for the guys on the ground right now? None of these things is pouring money into the military, it is keeping our military modern and in fighting condition. I don't care what other countries spend on the military. I don't care what they spend on education, for gas or anything else. When the day comes that I feel we should roll over and become a second rate country then maybe like you I'll take those things into consideration. Like it or not the nation that survives at the head of the gene pool will be the nation with the strongest military. That's the world we live in today.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Allow me to make a simple statement, and set out a new target for some of you. The United States of America is the one, the only, country on this big blue marble who continues to seek peace, and defend the lives and liberty of the peace loving peoples of the world. We, the American people have, and will continue to suffer small and sometimes very large hardships as a result of being the only ones who show our love for freedom, unerringly, around the globe. What continues to give ammunition to those who would thwart these noble efforts, is the biased views of the world press, and the profiteers, who have been around since the first conflict seeking to better their situation through the pain and suffering of others. Although I may not like paying $3.00 for gas, and pale at the thought of my loved ones being put in harms way, I will accept these trials as part of my payment for being a member of the BEST AND STRONGEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Burl


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

First off I would like to apologize to those who I have name called or personally insulted on this website. I was reading some of my posts and got embarrassed. Mom and dad raised me better and it does nothing to add to the discussion. It is also not about having a thick skin either, it is about being decent.

Burl, I agree with most of your post. Most American people will do what they think is right and step up to the plate when push comes to shove. I just think many of our leaders would not do the same because it is not advantageous to them. Maybe I'm just jaded.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Agreeing to disagree is a sign of maturity, as is an enthusiastic, knowledgeable discourse. I urge those who feel that there are changes needed in our political system to channel their energies toward seeking those beneficial changes. Get active, vote, lobby and otherwise put considerable contributions into what you would consider a worthy cause. Although it is a good way to spend time, and consider the viewpoints of others, an internet chat board is not where the changes will take place. I see so much enthusiasm here. Use it to enable change. Those who will, are the future of our beloved country. Burl


----------

