I honestly feel that it will come to the need for an all out war ala WWII, before this is put to an end. The question becomes, how will we do it? During WWII, the people supported the war effort. I haven’t seen that happening since Vietnam. During Desert Storm, the “anti-war” movement didn’t get much time to come together. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist. My buddies and I wouldn’t have cared any way, as we don’t get our orders cut from that crowd.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Are you kidding me? Clinton bailed out of Somalia, DIDN’T intervene in Rwanda or the Congo, took almost no action after the Cole was bombed as well as our embassies? Furthermore, the way he and his administration dealt (or DIDN’T deal) with bin Laden is an affront to this country.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This is probably more true today than when Mill wrote it.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much
worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has
no chance of being free unless made and kept so
by the exertions of better men than himself”
- John Stuart Mill

Liberals aren’t worthy of the blanket of freedom that we (the military) provide them, but we do it anyway.

They are coming, are you prepared?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Clinton was ineffective, but was far from non-interventionist. He passed the regime change act, calling for Saddam to be removed, enforced sanctions and the no fly zone in Iraq, shot missiles at bin laden, etc.

We have been intervening in the middle east since WWII. We have been squarely on the side of Israel since the 67 war. Hign profile Terrorism against the west started soon thereafter, remember the munich olympics ?

We have not been balanced in the middle east, since Eisenhower – when he stopped the Israelis, Brits and France from taking the suez.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We should instead be trying to balk the enemy’s plans. To do this, we would need to be non-interventionist (as Ron Paul points out), and humanitarian and open towards moderate muslims, and dismissive of Bin Laden and his radicals. Initially, we should have attempted to do everything possible to eliminate bin laden early on.

Pure Ron Paul nuttery. Clinton tried all that, and we lost 4000 American lives. How large must the attack be until we defend ourself? A dirty bomb maybe? A real nuke? 10,000 dead?

We’ve tried to dismiss the enemy and they continue to attack us. This country has been the most humanitarian country on the face of the planet, and they still attack us. Not defending oneself, sticking your head in the sand is just plain cowardice and a foolish.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I expect this kind of garbage against Gen Petraeus by people who have never served the country in any way, have not and will never serve in a war (too much yellow dog in them). This is the kind of people that hide and watch their own family being killed and never lift a finger to help. But their wounded ego (knowing they are cowards) combined with BDS makes them think they can get away with slandering those who serve. Insanity and confinement isn’t far away.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

While your comments were well-stated, I can’t agree with everything you’ve stated.

1.) The real problem is, that the natural conclusion of following Pipes’ strategy is an all out War with the muslim world, on the level of WWII, or even greater. You can’t occupy them, you can’t negotiate with them (Pipes says all negotiations are a muslim delay tactic. ) all that’s left is to kill them until they submit – I have seen Israeli’s carrying posters that read, “No Arabs, No Terrorism.” I have to reject Pipes’ strategy for this reason.

My reaction to that is: who fired the first volley? Was it the Iranian hostage crisis? The marine barracks attack in Lebanon, circa 1983; was it a hijacked airliner here, a hijacked airliner there? Was it Somalia? Was it Kosovo? The Cole?

My point is this: WHO has staked the flames of this potential war? The West? The US? I would contend that it’s militant Islam, without a doubt.

2.) We should instead be trying to balk the enemy’s plans. To do this, we would need to be non-interventionist (as Ron Paul points out), and humanitarian and open towards moderate muslims, and dismissive of Bin Laden and his radicals. Initially, we should have attempted to do everything possible to eliminate bin laden early on.

So are you saying that we should ignore radical Islam (when you say be dismissive)? Do we put our heads in the sand, cover our eyes, etc, when our allies are victims of suicide bombers?

3.) Israel has been the scourge of Islam for 60 years. But the talk they are persecuting the poor Palestinians, is pure nonsense. For all the bluster that they are committing genocide, the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank has grown 100-fold. Furthermore, Israel is surrounded by all sides with people who hate their guts and wish to annihilate the Jewish people. The Palestinians have become the scapegoat in the Muslim world, yet in reality, Muslims in Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, etc could care LESS about them. Why is that a majority of Palestinians carry Jordanian passports? Because many were expelled from Jordan as well.

FINALLY, the Jews is ANYONE, have more of a right to that land that the Palestinians. Judaism predates Islam by thousands of years. Frankly, they were there first. Yet, displaying their lack of tolerance, the militants refuse to recognize their existence or their right to that land as well…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t like Kamilla’s arguments, they are reactionary, and hateful, but Kamilla’s stupidity does not make Daniel Pipes Correct. There is no evidence that there are many muslims willing to leave home and family to kill westerners, if there were, we would have already lost in Iraq.

The real problem is, that the natural conclusion of following Pipes’ strategy is an all out War with the muslim world, on the level of WWII, or even greater. You can’t occupy them, you can’t negotiate with them (Pipes says all negotiations are a muslim delay tactic. ) all that’s left is to kill them until they submit – I have seen Israeli’s carrying posters that read, “No Arabs, No Terrorism.” I have to reject Pipes’ strategy for this reason.

What Would the greatest general, Sun Tzu Do ?

He says – Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans;
the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces;
the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field;
And the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

Well we are essentially doing what Sun Tzu says is the worst strategy, essentially beseiging walled cities, in Iraq.

We should instead be trying to balk the enemy’s plans. To do this, we would need to be non-interventionist (as Ron Paul points out), and humanitarian and open towards moderate muslims, and dismissive of Bin Laden and his radicals. Initially, we should have attempted to do everything possible to eliminate bin laden early on.

Now we should be doing everything possible to eliminate the fear generated from his propaganda, and to factionalize the muslim world. Pipes and others fan this flame of hate, without really much evidence, and help the muslim world to coalesce. How can the moderates in Iran gain any strength, when we keep threatening their country ? I’m sure Muslim moderates are called Cowards, traitors, and defeatists. Any many potential moderates, driven by fear of the US, move to the extremist for security.

This division between west and east, the suspiscion and confrontation is just what Bin Laden had in mind.

We should follow Sun Tzu, and Ron Paul, and Balk the Enemies plans, and prevent the juntion of his forces.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m reminded of a little tiny comment in Gen P’s report yesterday. Interestingly enough, it seems to be the only “shortcoming” that opponents of the war aren’t highlighting. He said that perhaps the greatest area of increase in Al Queda’s abilities is in cyberspace, and a concerted effort is needed to counter that Islamic extremist effort. Gee, given that UBL is parroting far left talking points, that almost all terrorists caught in thwarted plots here in the US are Dems or subscribe to the far left dogma…it seems oh so unusual that the left wouldn’t be all over that Petraeus point [/sarcasm off]

“Finally, in recognition of the fact that this war is not only being fought on the ground in Iraq but also in cyberspace, it also notes the need to contest the enemy’s growing use of that important medium to spread extremism.”

“regional, global, and cyberspace initiatives are critical to success”

Does anyone think the Islamic holy warriors are hacking to get into the Pentagon (oopsie, sorry, that was the People’s Republic of China-not Al Queda)? Hmmmm, what could Al Queda’s media council be doing on the web? I’m stumped. Ya think they go to Kos or LGF? DU or FR? Do they email talking points to Fox or MSNBC? Kucinich’s forums or Ron Paul’s?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Kamila’s rant, as that is really all it is, is your standard, typical Leftist rant. While he tries to answer the call that the Left constitutes of nothing more than a bunch of wimpy appeasers, he basically recites the same tired Leftist talking points. Anyone with a little bit of common sense can and should his diatribe for what it is: propaganda. UNFORTUNATELY, I don’t think you can put the words “Left” and “common sense” in the same sentence. Rather, a lot of people on the Left have become so diluted with misinformation that reasoning is impossible.

I thought it was funny that he compared Bush’s “war on terror” to nothing more than fear-mongering. But, what does the MSM do? If Bush is feeding us lies? What the HELL is the MSM feeding us?

Like or Dislike: 0  0