Nonpartisan view of the war on terror

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name

Display name:
Greg Kainz
I received this in my inbox today and found it an interesting read, regardless of your political affiliation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: An Article by Gen. Chong, USAF

This is for everyone to read regardless of your political affiliation. I had no idea who General Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the General and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!(the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.) Its kinda long but a must read.

If you would like information on General Chong, go to Google and type in his name. All of the following is something that everyone should read.

--------------------------
This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001 with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our superior position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing --- by their own pronouncements --- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question --- What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners --- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned --- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims --- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone --- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I agree that we must be united.

Who takes responsibility for dividing us?
 
MSmith said:
Who takes responsibility for dividing us?

We do.


and that's all I really have to say. I'm not really into political debates.
 
Well, I'm glad he identified the great error that brought this all on, negotiating in 79. Should have sent everything SAC had along with 1 C-141 to land there and said, "Put all our people on that plane in 15 minutes or we level Tehran." Carter was just too nice of a guy to be President, the job requires some ugly choices to be made.
 
gkainz said:
2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our superior position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

i agree with much of this, especially the "political correctness" baloney that keeps us from doing what's only logical: racial profiling. timothy mcveigh aside, the only perpetrators of terrorists acts against the u.s. have been middle eastern muslim males between the ages of 17 and 50. those are the sob's we should be looking for in airports, bus and train stations, etc. not blue haired grandmothers and blonde teenagers.

that said, i must disagree with the good general's ascertion of the reasons we are under attack. i do not believe it is "...envy of our ...position, success..or freedoms." militant islam doesn't really envy us. they just think we are evil and should be destroyed. they also don't see themselves as evil. james baldwin wrote that "...no man is a villian in his own eyes." it's true here, too. the muslims see themselves as the righteous swords of god. hence their willingness to die for their cause.

so in my mind the question of how to win this war is: how do you combat an enemy who is willing to do ANYTHING (including sacraficing self, family, etc.) to accomplish their (and they think, god's) goals?

i'm not sure i have a ready answer for this. theoretically, wars end when one side says "uncle" OR are completely destroyed. quite frankly, i can't see militant islam saying "uncle" any time soon. at the risk of being called a megolamaniac, i'd say if we want a timely end to the conflict (and a restoration of our constitutional freedoms) perhaps we should consider at least the threat of the destruction of islam.

one possibility might be to hold a world summit with the leaders of moderate islam and say to them: "we (the non-muslim west) cannot win this war without your help. you must help us ferret out the cancer of militant islam and destroy it or we will ALL be destroyed. and we (the US) will start by turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot".

i'm no diplomat but it seems the time for *****-footed diplomacy, as well as this stupid and costly "war" in iraq, is over. the time has come to end this insanity or live with the consequences general chong describes.
 
I agree with most of what the General writes, except the thing he implies but doesn't come out and say. Namely, that War in Iraq = War on Terror. There is little disagreement about the rightness of the war on terror, but a great deal on whether the war in Iraq contributes or detracts from that necessary war.
 
trombair said:
i agree with much of this, especially the "political correctness" baloney that keeps us from doing what's only logical: racial profiling. timothy mcveigh aside, the only perpetrators of terrorists acts against the u.s. have been middle eastern muslim males between the ages of 17 and 50. those are the sob's we should be looking for in airports, bus and train stations, etc. not blue haired grandmothers and blonde teenagers.

that said, i must disagree with the good general's ascertion of the reasons we are under attack. i do not believe it is "...envy of our ...position, success..or freedoms." militant islam doesn't really envy us. they just think we are evil and should be destroyed. they also don't see themselves as evil. james baldwin wrote that "...no man is a villian in his own eyes." it's true here, too. the muslims see themselves as the righteous swords of god. hence their willingness to die for their cause.

so in my mind the question of how to win this war is: how do you combat an enemy who is willing to do ANYTHING (including sacraficing self, family, etc.) to accomplish their (and they think, god's) goals?

i'm not sure i have a ready answer for this. theoretically, wars end when one side says "uncle" OR are completely destroyed. quite frankly, i can't see militant islam saying "uncle" any time soon. at the risk of being called a megolamaniac, i'd say if we want a timely end to the conflict (and a restoration of our constitutional freedoms) perhaps we should consider at least the threat of the destruction of islam.

one possibility might be to hold a world summit with the leaders of moderate islam and say to them: "we (the non-muslim west) cannot win this war without your help. you must help us ferret out the cancer of militant islam and destroy it or we will ALL be destroyed. and we (the US) will start by turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot".

i'm no diplomat but it seems the time for *****-footed diplomacy, as well as this stupid and costly "war" in iraq, is over. the time has come to end this insanity or live with the consequences general chong describes.

I've found one of the best ways to handle aggressive attacks by unknown but highly suspected parties is to simply smack the crap out of whoever deserves it and is handiest at the time, as long as it is visible to some of the involved parties. They will think more than twice the next time and if and when it happens again, repeat as needed. Like the Isrealis say, "It's better to die in blood than to live in $h!t."

That's one of the few benefits to the USA of going into Iraq.

It's nice to have dreams. It's cooler to meet the bad guys on main street at high noon (like in the movies) and wait for them to draw first and then beat them to it, shoot'em in the hand first and when that doesn't work, then kill them but, things don't work that way anywhere in the world and never did.
 
Henning said:
Well, I'm glad he identified the great error that brought this all on, negotiating in 79. Should have sent everything SAC had along with 1 C-141 to land there and said, "Put all our people on that plane in 15 minutes or we level Tehran." Carter was just too nice of a guy to be President, the job requires some ugly choices to be made.

Ah yes, I wasn't old enough to remember this. I have to agree though.
 
please excuse me, i may have not made myself clear. when i said "...end this insanity..." i meant the "jihad" against the west, not the iraq war.

OTOH, i think iraq is just a stupid excuse for "W" to flex his buns in the middle east without really addressing the root problem/nation: SAUDI ARABIA. ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were SAUDIS. osama bin laden is a SAUDI. the centers of islam are mecca and medina in SAUDI ARABIA. virtually ALL of the money fueling the "jihad" comes from...(you guessed it!) SAUDI ARABIA!

"W's" problem is that the Bushes (and most other oil men) have been in bed with the SAUDIS over oil for so many decades that if they threaten the SAUDIS, their oil empires will collapse.

rant OFF.

blue skies,
 
I believe the General is correct in his assesment and projections concering what "would losing really mean?". I also agree with Henning and his comment about what should have been done in '79. I was just a young pup and didn't agree with it even at that young age. Get in, get'em out and if there's no cooperation, starting with the top mutt, bring'em all down and finish them off.

Now, I noticed that this thread moved to a "denounce the Iraq war" theme rather quickly. I do agree that something must be done concerning Saudi Arabia (the world wouldn't like my ideas so I'll keep them to myself), but I do recall, and I'll dig up a link sooner or later, that there were two items that confirmed Saddam had his hand in the financing of Al Qaeda even though he didn't directly plan the two main terrorist attacks on the US home soil by non-citizens. I wonder if anyone else remembers hearing about the financial paper trail that has been conveniently hidden from the public view after a very brief stint in the news. I also wonder how many remember the confirmed meeting between the leader of the 9-11 group and one of Saddam's cabinet members. Anyone else remember these? I do and it has been confirmed that I am not a delusional type of person.

As to what we should do? Quit tying the hands of our troops, give them the mission and let them do it in such a manner that is the safest for them to do effectively. A school yard bully only stops bullying when he's been bloodied and taken down. Same type of situation here. If we don't bloody them and take them down, they will continue to bully.


Enough of my rant. Thanks for listening. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.....BEEEEEEP!
 
td,

i (and MANY OTHERS) would be very interested in seeing documentation showing a link between sadaam and al queda, etc. if there really was concrete evidence, why hasn't the bush admin. plastered it all over the media? they certainly have the "bully pulpit". information like that would have put to rest any of my questions about iraq/al queda linkage.

unfortunatly, i am deeply skeptical about our government's rush to kick out sadaam (a VERY BAD guy, i admit). i'm just having a hard time shaking the feeling that OIL (read $$$) had more to do with it than al-queda.

looking forward to your response. contact me offline if you prefer.

blue skies,
 
Henning said:
Well, I'm glad he identified the great error that brought this all on, negotiating in 79. Should have sent everything SAC had along with 1 C-141 to land there and said, "Put all our people on that plane in 15 minutes or we level Tehran." Carter was just too nice of a guy to be President, the job requires some ugly choices to be made.
Agreed!

Another poster in this thread noted that we need to not tie the hands of our troops and let them win this war. A sad example of having ones' hands tied was made very evident to me in reference to Henning's quote above.

I was on the Nimitz when the rescue mission, Operation Evening Light, was launched. We (VAW-112) provided radio relay for HM-16's RH-53 helicopters as they flew from the Nimitz to Desert One, where a sad disaster struck. http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-eagle-claw Note: HM-16 provided the helos for this mission, but not aircrew. Also, I've heard some derogatory statements concerning the readiness and reliability of their birds, but I know that they flew at a very high mission readiness and reliability for a number of weeks with us at Gonzo Station before sending their birds on this particular mission. In an unfortunate turn of nature, the whole mission flew into sandstorms, and helos and sandstorms just don't mix.

This mission, in my narrow, limited viewpoint, was hampered by a severe lack of decision-making authority on the ground, and way too many decisions requiring radio relays up the chain. But hey, what do I know, I'm just an ex-airdale...
 
trombair said:
please excuse me, i may have not made myself clear. when i said "...end this insanity..." i meant the "jihad" against the west, not the iraq war.

OTOH, i think iraq is just a stupid excuse for "W" to flex his buns in the middle east without really addressing the root problem/nation: SAUDI ARABIA. ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were SAUDIS. osama bin laden is a SAUDI. the centers of islam are mecca and medina in SAUDI ARABIA. virtually ALL of the money fueling the "jihad" comes from...(you guessed it!) SAUDI ARABIA!

"W's" problem is that the Bushes (and most other oil men) have been in bed with the SAUDIS over oil for so many decades that if they threaten the SAUDIS, their oil empires will collapse.

rant OFF.

blue skies,

Partially correct, the money funding them come from the US, Europe, China... Everyone buying oil. Wanna end that? We should spend the money and political power to build Nuc power plants and move from oil to hydrogen. Keep the money out of their hands. Till after WWI they were sand poor fighting amongst themselves. After Aramco they're wealthy, so wealthy they don't even know what to do with the money. They import westerners like we import Mexicans, but they pay us better (lots better).

Wars are largely won economically, you'll never defeat an enemy that you give a large poirtion of your GNP to. The "Global Economy" doesn't do many peoply any favor, just a few really.
 
trombair said:
td,

i (and MANY OTHERS) would be very interested in seeing documentation showing a link between sadaam and al queda, etc. if there really was concrete evidence, why hasn't the bush admin. plastered it all over the media?

I replied to Vic directly with links and will gladly do the same with anyone else who's interested. As for why it's not been in the media and shoved in our faces? I can't answer that. All I know is that it got about 7 hrs or so of news-space and then disappeared....and rather abrubtly I might add. That in and of itself made me curious.

I knew from first-hand interviews of active duty Army personnel in the spring of 2002 that Iraq was next on the list. They were telling me these things before they hit the news and I figured that when I finally saw them in the news that these guys weren't just "trouble hunting". They didn't want to go, but were willing to go because they were upset that someone attacked the US and that they had finally found someone who was directly involved in the financing of the attackers. They wanted retribution and rightly so, IMHO.

Anyway, I won't take up anymore time on the thread and I don't intend to anger or irritate anyone with my views. Thanks for understanding.
 
Hiya everybody. This is my first post in here. I´m Spanish, what means I´m away of being an "American pilot" in any way :( and this is an old threat too, but as Spain is mentioned and I´m a pilot, I thought I´d have your "clearance" to write something, at least about this matter. Am I cleared? :goofy: Am I? am I? am I? :goofy: Please!!

Well, the basic idea is arguing (what a better way to introduce oneself in a community) with that Gen. Chong. He wrote:

"They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished."

What I just wanted to say was this:

- The Spanish idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq wasn´t born after the attack to the trains. In fact, we all (you, me, them... everybody) know, that there´s no better way to move the public opinion to the "F**K ´EM ALL!!!" side than a direct attack like that one. More than a 90% of the population was against that war before it was started.

- We had ellections a couple of days after the attack to the trains, ellections that was, obviously, going to put out of the power to the party that involved us into the Iraq thing against that mentioned 90% of the population. The evident pre-attacks winner party was that evident winner because their promise of withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Nothing to do, again, NOTHING to do with the attacks.

- We have had our own terrorists for more than 30 years. They are still bombing us every once in a while. Everyday in a less and less fierce way. They started with supermarkets bombing, cars bombing, shooting people´s head in the street... (my sister is a politician and, quite often, I drive her car, so I´ve been checking behind it looking for a bomb since I learned to drive) and now they are in the "Is that the police? Yeh... well... this is E.T.A., and we just wanted you to know that there´s a firecracker in the North side of Pamplona´s airport, 100 meters away from the runway´s fence... It won´t exploit, but it´s there. Thank you". I, myself, suffered one of their actual attacks while having a beer, and it was even funny. This has two meanings: The first, we are not scared of bombs. Nobody can change our minds by bombing whatever or whoever. It has the opposite effect. Not only in us, more or less used to that, but I´m sure that in any person in the wolrd who calls himself like that. And the second, is that you can´t finish the terrorism by attacking in such an oppened way. Doing so, the only thing you get is more rage against you. What about if we had sent our troops to "invade" (it´s in Spanish territory, so the word invade should be written like that, "invade") the Bask Country? Would us have had any success in reducing the number of attacks and their seriousness? At all!! The only thing you get that way is some terrorist dead, and for each one you kill, you get all his family, friends, relatives, neighbours... people who didn´t even know him... people who before that was only hating you, but that now hates you to death and is ready to kill you!! You kill one, you have 100 new terrorists. That´s NOT the way. Introducing spies among their files, following their movements, sending to jail their commanders, convincing his own people via TV, movies, newspapers... the media, that one is the good guy. Not in a "Spanish way", but using, not only their onw language, but their own style and classical media.

- Anyhow, you have not lost Spain. If I´m not wrong, I missed a friend not long ago in Afganistan (and almost lost another one). What the hell was he doing there if he was not there? And some other friends who are still in Afganistan... some who come and go... Where do they go then when they say they are going to Afganistan? :dunno:

I could probably be here writing for hours about this.

Just one observation. Saddam was a Ba$74rd, no doubt, but Iraq was an objetive of the fundamentalist terrorist too. Remember that it was a secular state. With a muslim majority... almost totallyty, yes, but legally secular (in fact there are christians there who had been living peacefully for decades). If that new about Iraq financing Al-Qaeda was withdrawn of the news, was probably because it wasn´t true and too obvious for anyone who already knew the previous situation of Iraq regarding the terrorism. Did they hide in Iraq? Possible. Did they get some money from some "investors" in Iraq? Possible too, but, is it possible that if they did it was like when here E.T.A. get money from our own people, via menaces, via "I have another primary objetive that is not you. Pay and you´ll be forgotten, don´t pay and you´ll become that objetive" (after all, a terrorist organisation is not anything but a mafia, dedicated to get money convincing poor idiots about some idiotic idea and making them kill innocents and die because of it)?

Nice introduction to a new forum, isn´t it? I love controversy.
 
one of the big things that trouble me (of many) is what Volando touched on - Iraq used to be secular and Christians lived there peacefully. it isn't going to be secular when this is all over and forget about Christians living there. and haven't women's rights gone backwards?
 
Interesting responses to the letter VolandoVoy.

One of my younger students returned from airport operations work in Iraq a few months ago and is now training in jets before ultimate return to the region.
 
Back
Top