Guess who sent me this one....

>
>     New York Post; Afraid to kill
>
>     By RALPH PETERS
>
>     Updated: 4:32 AM, November 24, 2009
>
>     It's not true that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Even dead terrorists aren't good. But at least they're dead. And that helps.
>     But political correctness has possessed Washington. It's so bad that even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's done a great job in many other respects, parrots the clich� that "we can't kill our way out of this."
>
>     Well, folks, there's no other way out of this all-or-nothing struggle with fanatics. Three thousand years of history teach that there's no alternative -- none -- to killing fanatics in large numbers when your enemies are ablaze with religious zeal.
>     What Gates and countless others really mean is that we're unwilling to kill our way out of this assault on our civilization. So the terrorists keep on killing us.
>
>     We tell ourselves that one more charm offensive, one more inept aid program, one more surge of troops who aren't allowed to fight will persuade terrorists on a murderous mission from their god to lay down their arms and run for alderman.
>     We refuse to see the world through terrorist eyes. Instead, we superimpose liberal-arts-faculty values on bloodthirsty zealots, asking what we've done to make them so angry.
>     The result? We grant captured terrorists more rights and better treatment than nonviolent offenders in a US county jail. We cater to them at the gentrified prison at Guantanamo (yet the global media insist that Gitmo's just a big torture chamber).
>     We tell ourselves we'll impress our enemies with our humanitarianism. But how many Gitmo prisoners have turned pacifist or expressed regrets? If you were convinced that you were doing God's will, would you be budged by a captor who gives you priority health care, a religiously correct diet, special worship privileges and free legal counsel? Allah has made his enemies weak . . .
>
>     The laws of war provide for the battlefield execution of illegal combatants -- those who refuse to wear uniforms or identifying insignia or who commit atrocities. Instead, we give them flu shots before American citizens can get them.
>     When a madcap ideologue such as Attorney General Eric Holder tells Congress we mustn't be afraid to try terrorists in our judicial system, he gets it exactly wrong. The terrorists believe we're afraid to kill them. And they're right.
>     So we'll get the upcoming propaganda bonanza of the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his terrorist barbershop quartet. And we'll squander hundreds of millions of dollars on special security precautions in Manhattan. The inevitable outcome? We'll make heroes of the terrorists throughout the Muslim world.
>     Meanwhile, down in Texas, terrorist assassin Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is already making a mockery of our judicial system. Hasan will become a terrorist icon, too.
>     And even if Hasan, KSM and the boys are all convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder, they won't be executed for many years to come -- if ever.
>     How does this deter fanatical enemies? Our insistence on treating terrorism as shoplifting that got a little out of hand does not protect Americans.
>      
>     Terrified of the new global reality, Washington refuses to accept that we're no longer dealing with the political terrorists of the 20th century -- some of whom could, indeed, be won over or bought off. We're now dealing with religious madmen hungry for an apocalypse. And our government and the media scramble to deny that Islam has anything to do with it. The poor terrorists just have grievances.
>
>     If Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a heart attack during his trial, he'll get better health care than most Post readers. Paralyzed from the waist down, Maj. Hasan will get priority on rehab treatment over our vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.
>     Bring terrorists to Manhattan? They should never have made it to Gitmo.
>     Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."

So true Duane, it is never going to end, we are infidels(SP) and its their job to take us out.  Yes we have another Viet Nam, and its not going to end soon.  A lot of good men and women are going to be lost for what, a country that does not even want us there and people that are heck bent on killing us.  Better get the body bags ready for use. The Russians saw what a mess it was and turned and got out before they lost a lot more men and women also...JMOO...Don

formercrewguy wrote on 12/12/09 at 9:01am:


So you think that the US goal in Afghanistan is to free the people of tyranny and establishing a democratic country?

If that's our goal, then we are in for a long and fruitless war.

Democracy only comes to those that desire it and fight for it themselves. History has proved this time and time again.

There was a time when conservatives understood this and embraced a more conservative use of our military.

"Nation Building" has always been a policy of liberals, (In 2000, GW Bush criticized Clinton for unwise democratic "Nation building" in the Balkins), but since GW Bush began his series of military backed "Nation Building" experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, conservatives have done a complete political 180 and now embrace "Nation building" as a viable goal.

I still believe the best use of our valuable and precious military members is in the defense of America and our interests, not in building highways and hospitals in Afghanistan for a people that would shoot any one of us if they found out where we were from.

And btw, where are the tea party folks demanding that the costs be considered?  If spending a trillion dollars on health care for Americans is bad, then how can spending a trillion dollars (or more) to build a democracy for people who don't want it be a good idea?

Just asking, that's all.

dsc

dscEvents wrote on 12/12/09 at 3:34pm:



Point here Dave is this ain't going to end.   It can't because they can fly an airplane into a building anytime they want.  Or have another Maj. Hassan. Its just the way it is. I know you know there are only three avenues with our terrorists, convert, submit or be killed. and they are still teaching that in there schools, even here in the states.  Vietnam ended, this won't.   Get my drift?

Duane


let the yabut's begin.

The only comparison of Afghanistan to Vietnam is the fact that politicians are running it. NOT the military. It has proven to be a disaster since Korea.

Also...........I can GUARANTEE.......if the President gave the green light to the Marines, to go get Osama by WHATEVER means..........Osama would be in custody or dead in 1 month.........

fromthegrandstands wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:24pm:


If WE stoop to THEIR level to win, then THEY have WON.

Can't any of you true Americans see this???

So you think that the US goal in Afghanistan is to free the people of tyranny and establishing a democratic country?

If that's our goal, then we are in for a long and fruitless war.

Democracy only comes to those that desire it and fight for it themselves. History has proved this time and time again.

There was a time when conservatives understood this and embraced a more conservative use of our military.

"Nation Building" has always been a policy of liberals, (In 2000, GW Bush criticized Clinton for unwise democratic "Nation building" in the Balkins), but since GW Bush began his series of military backed "Nation Building" experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, conservatives have done a complete political 180 and now embrace "Nation building" as a viable goal.

I still believe the best use of our valuable and precious military members is in the defense of America and our interests, not in building highways and hospitals in Afghanistan for a people that would shoot any one of us if they found out where we were from.

And btw, where are the tea party folks demanding that the costs be considered?  If spending a trillion dollars on health care for Americans is bad, then how can spending a trillion dollars (or more) to build a democracy for people who don't want it be a good idea?

Just asking, that's all.

dsc

########

Dave,

We finally found something to agree on.

Escalating in Afghanistan is a bad idea. The fighting of this war needs to be done with technology and special ops like Biden suggests. (I CANNOT believe I'm saying that.)

We have the technology available in drones that can carry payloads of any type of weaponry that the situation calls for with the ability to fly them though your front door from thousands of miles away.

My 1st question would be why do we not make destruction of the poppy fields our number 1 priority?

It is the only way that they have to raise money for weapons and payroll. Without the poppy fields they are done, yet we allow them to carry on unmolested.

Question #2 would be why are we not using the technology?

There are only 2 reasons that I can think of and neither one of them make very much sense. We either don't want to reveal the technology by using it or we don't want to spend the money to use it.

Fighting this war on the ground is going to get very ugly.

As far as the Tea Party folks. I believe most of them are more concerned with the domestic agenda. Taxes and spending.

jr07 very well stated




Duane,

In so many words you stated that we need to fight them over there so that they can not fly airplanes into our buildings (is that fair enough??)

If so...Then I must say, that no terrorist is going to fly a plane from afganistan into our buildings. In fact 9/11 planes took off from U.S. Soil.

Bring my brothers back home before more of them die. We have no business being over there. Hell, we have the enemy embedded in our own military on our own soil. Get em the f@ck out of there and bring them home. It would ease stress on the economy, and the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard can focus their attention on secure our borders. Dammit man...Secure our borders and they can't get in here.

IMO the only way out of this mess is WWIII and WWIII is exactly what the a-holes want.

formercrewguy wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:16pm:




WELL SAID,,, We could if He wanted to,,

18rcr,

You certainly have a right to your opinion.

But everything you said goes against my Christian upbringing and values. But  I realize that my understanding of Christianity might be different from others understanding of our faith.

It also goes against what I have always thought were American values.

Ben Franklin once said that a nation willing to trade it's values for security deserves neither.

dsc

dscEvents wrote on 12/13/09 at 9:55am:

It just goes to show you that nobody can be correct all the time, even Ben had a bad day,,, American values goes hand in hand with defeat of the enemy, atleast our forfathers thought so, fighting wars like we do now (not fighting to end it) is going to get alot more Americans killed and prolong the fear of economy, Get in kick ass and do whatever it takes to get our troops home so we can start weeding out the enemy here at home,