1 - 10 Next
I don’t believe George Bush wanted to invade Iraq. The “rush to war” took a year! I believe we should have gone in sooner. During the saber rattling, they fortified their defenses and even had time to move much of their weapons of mass destruction to Syria. The Russians were supplying Iraq with weapons and IR goggles to engage our troops. The war strategy employed was the same as our allies as well as our enemies around the world. When our invasion went so quickly through their defenses, it scared both our enemies as well as our allies. They all realized America had the military might to conquer the entire world at that time had we so chosen. Muslims don’t respect weakness, but they do respect strength. This aggression displayed strength. Once we took control after toppling his regime, there were problems regarding ferreting out the terrorists. We failed in many ways in Iraq. Did we gain an advantage in their oil? No. Did we set up a lasting democracy? No, we failed. But if you look at it through the lens of 9/11, things become much more clear. Many look at it as stirring up a hornet’s nest. I call it the honey theory. The terrorists wanted to continue their attacks on American soil and on American interests overseas. But Iraq is in the heart of their home base. They had to rally against what they termed “the great Satan” from occupying a strategic centerpiece in the Middle East.
Why did we invade Iraq? Was it really related to the 9/11 attacks? Under the lens of 9/11 things become much more clear. After 9/11 America demanded all terror sponsoring nations stand down. That was a reasonable demand by the world’s only super power. That was necessary to get a handle on what happened and what response would necessary and effective at keeping our nation safe. All nations stood down, with the exception of Iraq. There were some groups that remained vocal, but that just made them a target. But the nation of Iraq refusing to stand down was unacceptable. Why would Saddam Hussein believe he could call our bluff? Why did he not believe we would take him down? In hindsight we now know that he was bolstered by the corrupt ‘Food For Oil’ scandal providing funds for German made bunkers. The English were capitalizing on the “Food For Oil” cheap oil. The Russians were also aiding Iraq and all convinced him America didn’t have the stomach to go after him unilaterally and they would block our plans through the United Nations. Letting his flagrant behavior stand would leave us open for further and even more devastating attacks. Muslims are ordered to exploit weakness, and America would be seen as weak and vulnerable. That was unacceptable.
The problem is history versus political history. Liberals and the left see the Iraq war as “settled science” as being needless and another horrible war mongering decision by the politically hated George Bush. The liberal reporting on all things Bush were actually nothing more than hope for self fulfilling prophesies. Confusing this self serving ‘reporting’ with facts lead to liberal dementia and their beliefs got locked in. Liberals track back history only as far back as it meets their ideology. They conveniently forget or discount what Bill Clinton said about Iraq. They skip over the mindset of America after 9/11, and ‘move on’ to the less traumatizing time when the worry of further attacks had subsided. For ideological reasons they refuse to see Iraq under the lens of 9/11 so they can oppose everything about George Bush and the fear they felt from 9/11. Nearly all liberal reporters on Iraq were proved false prophets.
In response to:

The Sword Is Mightier Than The Pen

Fire_Ready Wrote: Jan 12, 2015 9:13 AM
Good point. Our political leaders have been either cowardly or asleep at the switch. With Leftists in charge there was no possibility of any actual focus on the real problem. Conservatives can make a difference, but many Republicans are cowards also and, to quote another blogger, in the middle of any conversation say "Look! A squirrell!!" and cowards lose focus. But eventually focus we must. The waiting only consequence is paying a much larger price in both lives and treasure. When the *stuff* hits the fan, they all say "That isn't what I meant"!! But everyone pays the price.
In response to:

The Sword Is Mightier Than The Pen

Fire_Ready Wrote: Jan 12, 2015 2:03 AM
His last article showed him as a Colonel, an O-6 not a Lt Col O-5. Not only should we stop importing them on the Visa Fastrack, but we should be DEPORTING in mass those that have displayed any violent tendencies or are not actually productive and legal members of our society. No matter where they are from send them on a one way non-stop flight to Sri Lanka!
In response to:

The Sword Is Mightier Than The Pen

Fire_Ready Wrote: Jan 12, 2015 1:46 AM
Excellent military perspective. There is another tactic that can be even more effective that needs to be discussed. It is a missed opportunity because we want so badly to be respectful of their faith. Christians can actually know they will go to Heaven by believing in Jesus Christ and following his word and avoiding sin. Muslims according to the Koran can never know they will go to heaven except through their own death in Jihad. This is what spawns Jihad. We actually support them in their quest for heaven by providing them proper burial. We are complicit in their Jihad be ensuring their reward. These individuals are not deserving of our support in this area. We must ensure their desire of heaven through Jihad is removed. Pigs are considered unclean. Body mutilation also places their reward of heaven in question. Instead of respecting them for their faith being put into action by killing our people, we must remove their reward of heaven as a consequence of pursuing Jihad against us. Kill them, dismember their bodies and bury their bodies in pigs blood in an unmarked grave. They do not respect weakness, as the Koran directs them to conquer those that display weakness. But they do respect strength. We need to remove the Jihadist’s heavenly reward instead of rewarding them. Their murderous actions will not be worth the consequences of losing their heavenly afterlife.
In response to:

The Conservative Case Against Torture

Fire_Ready Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 4:30 PM
"Our government is incompetent as *$&#" We agree on that. "We have credible stories of men being released from Gitmo 3 years after being imprisoned there, only to find out that not only were they not involved in terrorism, but we don’t have a shred of evidence to justify his being held there." This is by far the exception rather than the rule, and even then the intel telling us they were not involved is quite suspect. More often these terrorists are released and return to the battlefield and kill innocent civilians and our troops.
In response to:

The Conservative Case Against Torture

Fire_Ready Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 4:18 PM
>>We can freely kill them. We can't "torture" them? Pro UN Partisan wrote: "We cannot freely kill them in custody, which would also be a war crime." Our military and CIA have a choice: Kill them and leave them on the battlefield or capture them. Capturing is inherently dangerous and costly. Anyone saying we should never 'torture' captured terrorists is really saying we are far better off just killing them where we find them, as that would ultimately be more humane. They could die in battle and go to heaven with their 72 virgins. But we do need intel. We are quite good at getting intel and extracting the good from the bad, regardless of what you may have heard others say. I can agree with killing them where we find them, but I do wish to add a stipulation: Dismember them and bury them in pigs blood. Or even feed them to the hogs. I do not wish them to feel rewarded for their terrorist deeds. I say eliminate their chance of heaven, as they have forfeited that courtesy when they became terrorists.
In response to:

The Conservative Case Against Torture

Fire_Ready Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 4:08 PM
(Laughing at the UN Pro-Partisan), Go to your precious UN website and see if everyone else follows these wonderful sounding items of the treaty and whether they can be retracted. They are temporary, whether signed by Bush, Reagan, Clinton or Obama. Double standard? Haha! "They radical Muslims could point to our threat to them" could you say that with a liberal whine? Hahaha! Like they would do anything different because of what you say or we do regarding this issue. In the context of "UN torture" everyone violates this treaty. I am sure we meant it and it sounded really good when signed, but the times change. The exception to the rule of civilized treaties has arrived. But I no longer believe the United Nations is capable of playing any positive role in getting it done. The UN is anti-American, and as you seem to base your core beliefs and trust in them, you may want to do a gut check.
In response to:

The Conservative Case Against Torture

Fire_Ready Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 3:54 PM
Aw yes! You are conservative! Riiight! A treaty is not Supreme, it is a temporary agreement that can be changed at any time. We voted the bums out of the Senate. With the stroke of a pen the United States can remove the anti-American United Nations from our shores, and this needs to be done. The title Anti-Partisan should not have strong partisan feelings, but you seem to have them, which means you are really Anti- Anti-Partisan! A UN one world order ideologue. I am proudly American.
1 - 10 Next