Iran Fears Attack from Four Directions

[sirs]

LOL....Tee's trantrum following another Plane take down

[Amianthus]

Bullshit.  He lets his administration do the lying for him and never said a word about it.

He said it in a speech. Several times. Sorry for your failing memory.

[Plane]

Bullshit.  He lets his administration do the lying for him and never said a word about it.

You mean he never said a word that you would deign to listen to.

Why should your opinion need any more basis than itself?

[Stray Pooch]

Of course Bush said, on several occasions, that this would be a war measured in years, not months, and that it would last well beyond his adminstration.  He said it before a shot was ever fired, he said it within weeks of 9-11 and he said it repeatedly.  He also said that the objective was NOT to capture bin Laden or defeat Al Quaeda but to target ALL terrorist groups of global reach and ANY nation that lent them aid. 

Liberals have been spreading an alternative reality for almost nine years now.  They say our war efforts are a failure because:

1)  bin Laden hasn't been caught.
2)  Iraq had "nothing to do with 9-11."
3)  The Taliban has not been defeated.
4)  The voters didn't reject George Bush - oh, wait, that's THEIR objective, not Bush's.


In fact, the toppling of the Iraqi regime was a perfectly valid objective in this war.  Ending a nation which supports TERRORISM - not "Al Quaeda" but ANY terrorist organization, was part of the original mission.  Iraq clearly supported international terrorist groups AND even attempted to export its own terror groups.  The Taliban is still fighting.  So what.  The Taliban is not, and has not been for several years, the legitimate government, the de facto government, the government in exile or any form of government at all.  THe fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured is true, but it simply means that one objective of the war on terror is not yet accomplished.  Osama has TALKED a lot in the last nine years from his hidey-hole.   He has accomplished nothing.  We have not yet put the dog down, but we have certainly put him on a leash.  He growls a lot,  but he has no bite.

Now MT says we are about to take on the mighty, mighty Iranian forces.  Crap.  Everybody said the same thing about Iraq before Desert Storm.   "Third largest army in the world!"  "Massive casualties expected."  "Won't be a pushover."  "Mother of all wars." 

How'd that work out for ya, Iraq?

The fact is, for all their bluster and nuclear ambitions, Iran would fall in weeks, maybe days.  Like Saddam, they would throw out some missiles towards Israel, call their Muslim allies to assist them (which calls would largely be ignored) and deny their defeat as it happened.  But the result would be the same.  We have (I think wisely) avoided attacking Iran because unlike other Muslim nations, the people of Iran REMEMBER western-style freedoms that are denied them now.  I used to think that the Iranian people would eventually overthrow the mullahs as they did the Shah.  But the crackdown on the opposition has changed my mind.  I think the people want democracy, but they have no way to achieve it.  If we attacked Iran, the people would resist, as they did in Iraq.  But there would be a difference.  There is not a three-faction population in Iran as there is in Iraq.  There is a large and growing popular movement to overthrow the theocracy.  Unlike in Iraq, where Saddam had brutally cowed the population and there was never any sense of freedom, Iran has an active and vocal opposition, with internal leaders already identified and more rising. 

We would not be "welcomed as liberators" but we could put into play the forces of reform simply by decimating the military cacpabilities of the government and (paradoxically) driving the opposition and the hardliners together.  By gaining a foothold in their own government, the crisis would give the reformers power they lack now - and the hardliners, though momentarily on the upswing, would lose power through their demonstrated inability to make good their boasts.  I don't see this resulting in a friendly Iran, just the opposite.  But I do see it making a less beligerant and more internally focused Iran.  They'll hate us for a while at least, but they"ll be more focused on stabilizing their nation and becoming a player in the world market than on bullying their middle-eastern allies and destroying Israel. 

Iran has a fledgling nuclear capability.  But it's military is a sad remnant of the powerful force that the Shah, with western support, had built.  It is they, not us, who are a paper tiger.  As long as we did not attempt to take over the oil resources (which would trigger an immediate response from Russia and China and threaten a world war) we could go in, dismantle the threat, sign a few treaties with a puppet government and leave.  What happened after that wouldn't matter much.  If Russia and China are holding back and turning a blind eye, you can bet their interests have already been addressed by the US in backchannels.   Iran may be pissing its pants for good reason.   

If, in fact, this scenario or something like it should occur, and Obama is the driving force behind it, it would greatly change my opinion of the man.  It might well be the antidote to the disastrous Carter years that got us here in the first place.

[sirs]

*Golf Clap*         

[Christians4LessGvt]

Here is President Bush saying it is a hard long struggle:

At 2:07 he says "long struggle".

At 2:43 he says "it's tough"

ps: wow I had forgotten how much I really miss him....the dude told it like it was...we are at WAR!
     under him we won in Iraq....under Obama the IslamoThugs that helped Bin Laden carry out 911 may win.
     ANY QUESTIONS MF?


Bush Takes on Reporter

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US cannot give the Iranians what they want, nor would they even try.

A US attack on Iran would bring gasoline up to $8.00 per gallon or beyond and would have no benefits on Americans or Iranians, and would tend to convince the Muslim world that the US was starting some sport of weird crusade against over a billion people.

Maybe attacking Canada would be dumber, but only barely.

It would be the epitome of stupidity.

[Michael Tee]

<<Here is President Bush saying it is a hard long struggle:

<<At 2:07 he says "long struggle".

<<At 2:43 he says "it's tough">>

2:07?  2:43?  What's the DATE of those remarks, was it before or after the invasion?  And how does it compare with Cheney's "greeted as liberators," Rumsfeld's estimated cost of "only" $50 billion and Adelman's "cake-walk?"

Bush isn't a one-man band and the administration doesn't prepare the ground with one single sound-bite.  Anyone who remembers the run-up to the Iraq war remembers the bullshit claims of WMD, the "can't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud," the refusal of the UN Security Council to authorize use of force, etc.  Cherry-picking the odd remark now and trying to expand it into the whole of the pre-war campaign to prep the American people for the invasion is an exercise in BS that will convince nobody who remembers what really happened.

[Michael Tee]

<<[He mentioned "hard work"]  Before[the invasion] of course.

<<Sometimes I wonder if Bush critics ever paid any attention to Bush, lots of criticism , little evidence.


<<http://quotations.about.com/od/georgewbush/a/BushHardWork.htm>>


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

Well, plane, you are wrong again.  My question was "When did Bush mention "hard work," before the invasion or after?  If you take the trouble to read your own post, you will see that it starts from the debates between Bush and Kerry in the fall of 2004, whereas the invasion of Iraq took place IIRC in 2003.

If I am correct in my assumptions, Bush did NOT tell the American people that there were going to be serious problems involved in invading Iraq until well after the invasion - - and even then, "hard work" is not exactly a meaningful description of a war that is still unfinished business seven years after the invasion with a price tag of $3 trillion and counting.

[Amianthus]

Well, plane, you are wrong again.  My question was "When did Bush mention "hard work," before the invasion or after?

IIRC, he mentioned that the fight against terrorists was going to be long and drawn out in his State of the Union address in 2002.

and even then, "hard work" is not exactly a meaningful description of a war that is still unfinished business seven years after the invasion with a price tag of $3 trillion and counting.

That $3T is an estimate of over 20 years of spending. It's not spent yet, so there is no "and counting".

[sirs]

Over 20years??  And what's the debt CURRENTLY under this Administration again?

[Michael Tee]

<<Of course Bush said, on several occasions, that this would be a war measured in years, not months, and that it would last well beyond his adminstration.  He said it before a shot was ever fired, he said it within weeks of 9-11 and he said it repeatedly. >>

Bullshit.  He did NOT say of the invasion of Iraq that it would be a war measured in years, he was speaking of the war against those who had destroyed the WTC.

<< He also said that the objective was NOT to capture bin Laden or defeat Al Quaeda but to target ALL terrorist groups of global reach and ANY nation that lent them aid. >>

Again, not referring at all to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

<<Liberals have been spreading an alternative reality for almost nine years now.  They say our war efforts are a failure because:

<<1)  bin Laden hasn't been caught.>>

That's a failure of the first magnitude.  The guy murders almost 3,000 non-combatant U.S. citizens and residents and you haven't been able to do a God-damn thing about it.  He's a folk hero to millions of Muslims who are still watching videos of the Twin Towers falling into rubble and he's inspired hundreds of thousands to join his jihad.

<<2)  Iraq had "nothing to do with 9-11.">>

Also true.  Saddam was reviled as a Godless apostate by those ignorant fanatics and Arab Socialism wanted nothing to do with them.

<<3)  The Taliban has not been defeated.>>

Not been defeated?  They're growing in strength from year to year.  Why do you think Karzai is referred to as "the Mayor of Kabul?"

<<4)  The voters didn't reject George Bush - oh, wait, that's THEIR objective, not Bush's.>>

That's so stupid and childish it's not worth posting, let alone replying to.


<<In fact, the toppling of the Iraqi regime was a perfectly valid objective in this war.  Ending a nation which supports TERRORISM - not "Al Quaeda" but ANY terrorist organization, was part of the original mission.  Iraq clearly supported international terrorist groups . . . >>

First of all, "terrorism" is a method, not an ideology.  All nations, including the U.S.A., have used and supported terrorists.  The U.S. sheltered for years a terrorist who was  convicted years ago (i.e. before Hugo Chavez) in a Venezuelan court of blowing up a Cuban civilian airliner and killing over 70 civilian passengers.  The U.S. supported the Contras who waged a terrorist campaign against the legitimate Nicaraguan government of the day.  To this day the U.S. refuses to pay damages assessed against it in the World Court for its support of terrorism.  

Secondly, the "terrorist" groups that Iraq supported were directed against Israel and as far as I can see, only against Israel.  The issue was which "terrorists" had attacked Americans on American soil, and to invade Iraq for doing no more than the U.S. itself had done (i.e. support "terrorists" for its own political agenda) was completely illegitimate.  War is a last resort against an enemy which has attacked you or an ally which you are treaty-bound to defend.  No "terrorist" group supported by Iraq had until then attacked either America or any country that America was treaty-bound to defend.

<<AND even attempted to export its own terror groups. >>

I'm not aware of any such attempt.

<< The Taliban is still fighting.  So what.  The Taliban is not, and has not been for several years, the legitimate government, the de facto government, the government in exile or any form of government at all. >>

Bottom line:  they have not been defeated after nine years of war.  So it's a failure.  The "legitimate government" could not exist for 24 hours without U.S. support.  There is in fact NO legitimate government of Afghanistan at this point.  So you knocked the ball out of the Taliban's hands nine years ago and the ball is still in play.  I call that a failure, that after nine years the  U.S.A. was unable to defeat a piss-ant country like Afghanistan and is still fighting with the locals for control of it.

<< THe fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured is true, but it simply means that one objective of the war on terror is not yet accomplished.  Osama has TALKED a lot in the last nine years from his hidey-hole.   He has accomplished nothing.  We have not yet put the dog down, but we have certainly put him on a leash.  He growls a lot,  but he has no bite.>>

You didn't do what you said you'd do and that is a failure.  The rest is just mealy-mouthed excuses.

<<Now MT says we are about to take on the mighty, mighty Iranian forces.  Crap.  Everybody said the same thing about Iraq before Desert Storm.   "Third largest army in the world!"  "Massive casualties expected."  "Won't be a pushover."  "Mother of all wars." >>

So, uh, when are all those troops coming home?  Who's the boss in Iraq today?  For how long?

<<How'd that work out for ya, Iraq?>>

Well, the real question is, "How'd THAT work out for ya, Bankrupt Nation?"

<<The fact is, for all their bluster and nuclear ambitions, Iran would fall in weeks, maybe days.>>

Yeah, I know.  Cake-walk, greeted as liberators, "only $50 billion," etc.  Geeze, don't you guys ever stop scamming?

<<Like Saddam, they would throw out some missiles towards Israel, call their Muslim allies to assist them (which calls would largely be ignored) and deny their defeat as it happened.  But the result would be the same. >>

The result would be the same?  You mean you got ANOTHER $3 trill you can piss away to make Israel happy again?

<< We have (I think wisely) avoided attacking Iran because unlike other Muslim nations, the people of Iran REMEMBER western-style freedoms that are denied them now. >>

Yeah, that must be it.

<<I used to think that the Iranian people would eventually overthrow the mullahs as they did the Shah.  But the crackdown on the opposition has changed my mind.  I think the people want democracy, but they have no way to achieve it. >>

What if we killed hundreds of thousands of them and made millions homeless and crippled hundreds of thousands more, I bet THAT would satisfy their frustrated yearnings for democracy, wouldn't it?  (I can see where this conversation is going.)

 <<If we attacked Iran, the people would resist, as they did in Iraq.  But there would be a difference.  There is not a three-faction population in Iran as there is in Iraq.  There is a large and growing popular movement to overthrow the theocracy.  Unlike in Iraq, where Saddam had brutally cowed the population and there was never any sense of freedom, Iran has an active and vocal opposition, with internal leaders already identified and more rising. >>

YESSSS!!!  You'll be greeted as liberators!  Of course!

Wow.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on you.  Fool me three times, shame on you.  This game can be played forever.  There's a two-party system in the U.S. but both parties stand for the same foreign policy. That is the beauty of "democracy" and THAT is the "blessing" that will soon coming to Iran itself.  The oil, of course, has nothing to do with it.

<<We would not be "welcomed as liberators" but we could put into play the forces of reform simply by decimating the military cacpabilities of the government and (paradoxically) driving the opposition and the hardliners together.  >>

Ooops!  I guess "greeted as liberators" has kind of worn out its welcome.  Now there's another hare-brained scheme to replace it - - you'll "drive the hardliners and the opposition together."  And you know this of course by your long and patient study of Iran, its government, people and customs.

<<By gaining a foothold in their own government, the crisis would give the reformers power they lack now - and the hardliners, though momentarily on the upswing, would lose power through their demonstrated inability to make good their boasts. >>

Yeah, that should work.  Uh, because . . . ?

<< I don't see this resulting in a friendly Iran, just the opposite.  But I do see it making a less beligerant and more internally focused Iran.  They'll hate us for a while at least . . . >>

Yeah, people do tend to hate those who blow their loved ones to pieces, rape their womenfolk and torture their relatives . . .  but they'll thank you when they see it was all worth it in the end because they'll have "democracy" at last.  Which incidentally, they had achieved in 1952 but lost when the CIA overthrew their democratically elected government to save the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP) from the ignominy of expropriation>)

<< . . ., but they"ll be more focused on stabilizing their nation >>

THAT'S IT!!!  Focus.  Killing for focus.  We'll kill hundreds of thousands so the rest can focus.

<< . . .and becoming a player in the world market >>

instead of the pikers they are now.  Well, anyway, becoming a player is just a bonus.  The real benefits of the invasion and destruction of their country will be the focus benefit.

<<than on bullying their middle-eastern allies >>

whom they haven't invaded for over 250 years

<< . . .and destroying Israel. >>

NOW we're getting down to the nitty-gritty.  Do it for Israel and it all makes sense.  Poor Israel can only manage to murder a few aid workers and demonstrators at a time, massive killing like this for Israel requires some major-player support.

All in all, Pooch, I am appalled.  I try to take a humorous approach to this advocacy of mass murder, unprovoked war of aggression, bloodshed for virtually nothing - - the support of a racist, apartheid, murderous Israel state slipped in as if it were almost an afterthought - - this is the  EXACT same kind of crap that was used, even down to the outrageous lies of WMD (Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal) that was used to justify what happened to Iraq and its people.

Honestly I don't know what to say because I know that those who are bent on war will have their war.

That there will be no day of reckoning for the guilty just proves to me that there is no God.

[Michael Tee]

<<IIRC, he mentioned that the fight against terrorists was going to be long and drawn out in his State of the Union address in 2002.>>

Whoever thought to connect "the terrorists" he mentioned in 2002 with the invasion of Iraq?  That is totally absurd.



<<That $3T is an estimate of over 20 years of spending. It's not spent yet, so there is no "and counting".>>


Of course it's "and counting."  The estimates were based on the war dead and wounded as they existed at the time of the study.  There are ongoing costs, there is a withdrawal at some future date which could have its own costs.  There was no way to include costs of future Iraq-related actions in the estimates.

[Stray Pooch]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj93gDjOjOs

George Bush Post 9/11 speech pt 2

OK, Michael.  Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

This is the post 9/11 speech, given NINE DAYS AFTER THE ATTACKS.  Ami may remember it as a SOTU address because he references the SOTU at the beginning of it (part 1, which you can find on youtube if you desire, but that part is mostly introducing the POTUS and acknowledging visitors).


NOTE:  This was posted to youtube in Oct 2009, but the speech occurred (as referenced by Bush himself during the speech) on Spet 20, 2001.


Here is where Bush made it clear that EVERY GOVERNMENT that supports terrorism was a target.

5:10  Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

Here is where he clears up that Al Quaeda is NOT the only terror group we are after.


5:29 Our war on terror does begins with Al Quaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.



Here is where he makes it clear that this will be a long, unusual war, not like any previous war.  He also makes it clear that ANY nation that supports terror is a legitimate target.


8:37 "Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.  Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge, or no rest.  And we will pursue nations who provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region now has a decision to make:  Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.


Now.  THIS IS CONCLUSIVELY BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ, THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN or ANY front in the war on terrorism.  THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Bush warned America this would be a long war with many fronts.

How will you change your story now to make your argument fit the facts?

[Stray Pooch]

Bullshit.  He did NOT say of the invasion of Iraq that it would be a war measured in years, he was speaking of the war against those who had destroyed the WTC.

No he wasn't and I have posted the proof.  He was talking about ANY nation that supported terror.

<< He also said that the objective was NOT to capture bin Laden or defeat Al Quaeda but to target ALL terrorist groups of global reach and ANY nation that lent them aid. >>

Again, not referring at all to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Iraq demonstrably supported terrorism and clearly met the description in his initial speech.  I see your tactic now.  You are trying to insist that the war on Iraq does not "count" because it doesn't fit your narrow description of the objective of this war.  The problem is that YOUR description of the objective doesn't fit Bush's STATED description of the objective. 

<<Liberals have been spreading an alternative reality for almost nine years now.  They say our war efforts are a failure because:

<<1)  bin Laden hasn't been caught.>>

That's a failure of the first magnitude.  The guy murders almost 3,000 non-combatant U.S. citizens and residents and you haven't been able to do a God-damn thing about it.  He's a folk hero to millions of Muslims who are still watching videos of the Twin Towers falling into rubble and he's inspired hundreds of thousands to join his jihad.

And how's that Jihad working out?  Where is this great hero.  Well by gosh, he's hiding out of sight.  The whole world knows where President Bush is.  Any clown with a PC can get the coordinates of the White House, the Capital, the Pentagon, you name it.  They know where we are.  How is that "destroying America" thing working out for the mighty Jihad.  They could, of course, be more effective than say, putting a poorly constructed malfunctioning bomb in Times Square and then claiming that the almighty Allah had struck a blow for them in the great Jihad (I suppose some of the SUV was damaged, and maybe it was American made or something.  Praise Allah!) 

<<2)  Iraq had "nothing to do with 9-11.">>

Also true.  Saddam was reviled as a Godless apostate by those ignorant fanatics and Arab Socialism wanted nothing to do with them.

Potentially true, but irrelevent.  You prove my point by arguing this way.  Whether Iraq was directly involved in 9-11 or not is NOT relevent to the attack.  Toppling a regime that supported terrorism was within the scope of our multinational war.  And it worked.  Not only did Saddam get hung, but Khaddafi (pick a spelling) got his balls cut off.  Syria also started looking carefully at how far it was willing to go.  Iran is still beligerant, but a smackdown now would further illustrate the point - and it WOULD work.  I did not suggest that this point wasn't TRUE - I suggested that it was irrelevent.  It is. 

<<3)  The Taliban has not been defeated.>>

Not been defeated?  They're growing in strength from year to year.  Why do you think Karzai is referred to as "the Mayor of Kabul?"

And again, you make my point for me.  If the Taliban has not been defeated, why is Afghanistan not governed by them? 

<<4)  The voters didn't reject George Bush - oh, wait, that's THEIR objective, not Bush's.>>

That's so stupid and childish it's not worth posting, let alone replying to.

And yet you did . . .

<<In fact, the toppling of the Iraqi regime was a perfectly valid objective in this war.  Ending a nation which supports TERRORISM - not "Al Quaeda" but ANY terrorist organization, was part of the original mission.  Iraq clearly supported international terrorist groups . . . >>

First of all, "terrorism" is a method, not an ideology.  All nations, including the U.S.A., have used and supported terrorists.  The U.S. sheltered for years a terrorist who was  convicted years ago (i.e. before Hugo Chavez) in a Venezuelan court of blowing up a Cuban civilian airliner and killing over 70 civilian passengers.  The U.S. supported the Contras who waged a terrorist campaign against the legitimate Nicaraguan government of the day.  To this day the U.S. refuses to pay damages assessed against it in the World Court for its support of terrorism.  

I never said terrorism was an ideology.  You political whining doesn't change the facts.  As to the US supporting regimes that have used terrorist tactics, that's probably true.  Too bad.  Communism has a history of deadly suppression of the people of the countries where it has been established.  You still support it.  You support your ideology by suggesting that anybody who fights against communism is a fair target.  Well, I feel the same way about freedom (you know, the opposite of communism).  So I have no problem using the tactics of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung against communists, Islamists and fascists (all of who are from the same mold).

Secondly, the "terrorist" groups that Iraq supported were directed against Israel and as far as I can see, only against Israel.  The issue was which "terrorists" had attacked Americans on American soil, and to invade Iraq for doing no more than the U.S. itself had done (i.e. support "terrorists" for its own political agenda) was completely illegitimate.  War is a last resort against an enemy which has attacked you or an ally which you are treaty-bound to defend.  No "terrorist" group supported by Iraq had until then attacked either America or any country that America was treaty-bound to defend.

Bush did not mention ONLY terrorists who targetted America.  Again, he said all terror groups of global reach.  Further, Hussein himself attempted to have the elder Bush assassinated.  You keep trying to redefine Bush's definition of this war.  It was NOT just against terror organizations who had attacked Americans on American soil.  That is YOUR claim - not the President's. 

<<AND even attempted to export its own terror groups. >>

I'm not aware of any such attempt.

That's possible.  Some of the things that happened before 9-11 were not necessarily of interest to a Canadian who was not friendly to America.  9-11 raised a lot of awareness - including those among Americans.  Since I was military and interested in such things I kept track of them.  YMMV. 

<< The Taliban is still fighting.  So what.  The Taliban is not, and has not been for several years, the legitimate government, the de facto government, the government in exile or any form of government at all. >>

Bottom line:  they have not been defeated after nine years of war.  So it's a failure.  The "legitimate government" could not exist for 24 hours without U.S. support.  There is in fact NO legitimate government of Afghanistan at this point.  So you knocked the ball out of the Taliban's hands nine years ago and the ball is still in play.  I call that a failure, that after nine years the  U.S.A. was unable to defeat a piss-ant country like Afghanistan and is still fighting with the locals for control of it.

The Soviet Union, without many of the restraints that democracy has put on us, couldn't do that either.  If we had unlimited warfighting authority - if we could fight a war like the world used to fight wars - we could destroy the Taliban with sheer brutality.  We could do pretty much whatever we wanted.   If we started hanging everyone who even looked like a Taliban supporter, then buried their bodies wrapped in pigskin, the Taliban would soon lose its motivation for battle. Oh it would piss off a lot of the people - but it is easier to join up when the enemy is expected to  try to win your hearts and mind instead of opening them up with a bayonette.  If we nuked a few mountain ranges in Northern Pakistan, we could pretty well end the Al Quaeda threat - though bin Laden would never be found (at least not without a geiger counter).  If we did that, we WOULD win, win decisively, win permanently and establish quite safely (with the exception of the occasional Times Square bomber) any government we wanted there.  You would of course then complain about our barbaric war practices, so in your mind even absolute victory would be wrong.  Of course, in the case I have described, I would be inclined to agree with you.  But the Taliban is defeated for all practical purposes.  The Islamist movement has made too many enemies in too many regions to continue to grow as a powerful ideology.  It can take over countries, but when it begins to threaten areas outside the region, it can only play the competing powers against each other for so long.  Iran is beginning to find that out.  Germany found that out a bit too late.

<< The fact that Osama bin Laden has not been captured is true, but it simply means that one objective of the war on terror is not yet accomplished.  Osama has TALKED a lot in the last nine years from his hidey-hole.   He has accomplished nothing.  We have not yet put the dog down, but we have certainly put him on a leash.  He growls a lot,  but he has no bite.>>

You didn't do what you said you'd do and that is a failure.  The rest is just mealy-mouthed excuses.

Really?  Well hell, the Yankees haven't won the World Series this year.  I guess that makes them failures.  To quote the Great Yogi, "It ain't over . . . "well, you know the rest.


So you set yourself up as some educated, intelligent genius and try to denigrate my own knowledge base.  Well, you may have read more books by leftist idiots and the occasional marxist tome, but I am no more impressed with your credentials than you are mine.  I have educated myself, both by study and experience, about the conditions, the mindsets and the parties involved in this crisis.  I can hold my own in a debate with a partisan communist any day of the week.  It's just that communists don't admit when they are wrong, they just change the facts to fit their theories.

That there will be no day of reckoning for the guilty just proves to me that there is no God.

Both segments of that opinion will change.