Friday, February 23, 2007

"It's Not A Fight We Can Win Using The Strategies From Other Wars."

Today, you may have learned that things are not going all too swimmingly for The Big Dick Cheney as he traipses about Australia on our Tax Dollars. You may not know what he is slinging there.

Have a look at this and ask yourself, does it look like the W, Rove and Co follows it's own advice?
We've never had a fight like this, and it's not a fight we can win using the strategies from other wars.
Really, then why does it look like we are using traditional methods to fight the war in Iraq?
An enemy that operates in the shadows, and views the entire world as a battlefield, is not one that can be contained or deterred.
Really, why would you set yourself up for that kind of failure?
An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for peaceful negotiations.
Okay, but why mention this and not announce some new kind of strategy that might be wholesale different than a "troop surge," which looks a lot like more of the same tired war strategies deployed over the last 50 years by US military operatives?
The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive -- face the threat directly, patiently, and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)
Sure, but then why did we invade Iraq when there weren't any terrorists there in the first place? Surely, it was a strategic blunder to do so rather then utilize our resources in a much more adroit and narrowly targeted plan that aimed specifically at the real terrorists?
The war on terror is more than a contest of arms, and more than a test of will. It is a battle of ideas.
Really, how does one win a battle of ideas by blowing the shit out of a country that didn't deserve it?
We now know to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied all freedom, and left to the mercy of fanatical tyrants and false prophets, that is a direct strategic concern of free nations everywhere.
If that is the main concern, then why don't we point our guns at the House of Saud? They have been persecuting their peoples living on their lands for a long time - this is not to say they treat other Saudis badly. No, they give out great sums of money from their oil gains to their people. Even so, their women can't drive, vote or go out without being completely covered. Is that freedom?
By taking the side of moderates, reformers, and advocates for democracy; by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies; we improve the chances for a lasting peace, and we advance our own security interests.
The real litmus test here is if this is actually happening in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. So far, the jury is still out on those qualifications. And the wild ass guesses these people made to drive their actions have been extremely costly.

2 comments:

Enlightenment said...

I agree with everything you said with the exception of "rather then utilize our resources in a much more adroit and narrowly targeted plan that aimed specifically at the real terrorists".

A "much more adroit and narrowly targeted plan that aimed specifically at the real terrorists" would involve the F.B.I. turning the Pentagon in Arlington and the C.I.A. HQ in Langley upside down, the subpoena of many many documents from them, the arrest of Tenet and his former bosses Bush and Cheney, then-national security advisor Condaleeza Rice, and then-asst. Defense Secys. Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith and several other important people. These, as I have stated before, are THE REAL TERRORISTS.

To think otherwise is to make yourself believe that the laws of physics were suspended on one particular day (as without suspension of the laws of physics or instead, use of explosives, it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE and I do mean COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for a building to "collapse" at freefall rate, COMMON SENSE tells you that), the same day numerous cell phone calls were made at 35,000 feet altitude when cell phones wouldn't work above 8,000 feet; to also believe that incompetant "hijacker pilots" [read: C.I.A. asset patsies] who couldn't fly Cessnas or Piper Cubs worth a damn were somehow able to fly jumbo jets like experts, one even making his "airliner" do maneuvers that no REAL airliner can do; also believe that a paper and plastic passport "survived" the "intense" fire that incinerated plane, passengers and black boxes so we were told and ALSO "survived" the "collapse" [read: OBVIOUS controlled demolition] of the building it was in, so it could be "found" a couple days later in a ridiculously hamfisted effort to shore up an easily-disprovable myth; that these "Islamic fundamentalist hijackers" were so un-Islamic as to be doing cocaine, getting drunk and going to strip bars up to the night before 9/11; that "airliners" can vaporize themselves on impact into tiny parts with no tail section, crumpled fuselage, wings etc. that are there when a REAL airliner crashes; that the most high-tech Air Force in the world with the most high-tech air defense network in the world was of no more use on that ONE PARTICULAR MORNING than a couple guys with slingshots; that it is just a "coincidence" that there were numerous "wargames" scheduled for that morning and ongoing, one by the N.S.A. that involved the premise of "an airplane crashing into a building"; that it is just a "coincidence" that SOMEBODY warned in advance several important people like then-mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown to avoid flying and avoid the WTC complex on 9/11; that it is just a "coincidence" that SOMEBODY placed record amounts of "put" orders [betting a stock's value is going to decline sharply] on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter [based in the WTC] in the week before 9/11, which made SOMEBODY a fortune; that Bush's Secret Service staff must have been psychic because SOMEHOW they knew Bush was in no danger in Booker Elementary that morning, since they let him remain in that location for over 35 min. after hearing of the second crash at the WTC, when doing so would have to mean that they SOMEHOW knew that Bush was not even a potential target that morning, otherwise they would have followed standard operating procedure and picked him up by his armpits and CARRIED him away IMMEDIATELY (how the hell did they know Bush was in no danger? If they didn't know the 9/11 plan beforehand, how on earth could they possibly be so confident as to assume the President wouldn't be a possible target???); and many other "anomalies" and "contradictions" and impossibilities that all point to one GLARING, INESCAPABLE conclusion: 9/11 was an inside job. Period. Are you really willing to swallow the list of things I just mentioned that are necessary to swallow in order to believe the "official" myth of 9/11? If so, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you, complete with tollboth plaza, no messy paperwork necessary...

Enlightenment said...

tollbooth* plaza I meant... So how about it? Great location, right in Brooklyn, really famous bridge, rock-bottom price...