I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of frequenteurs (if that term is applicable) of this forum regarding the war in Iraq.
Personally, I'm somewhat devided in my opinion. I see that the UN might ultimately wind up benefitting from this quite a bit in the end, but I also see that a tyrant will be removed. What are your thoughts?
It's a win-win situation for the UN. We're setting the stage for the complete loss of sovereignty for all nations. We have no right to do a pre-emptive strike against a nation that 'might harm US'. Not much gets a rise out of US- loss of jobs is ok; loss of retirement funds is ok; what's a little loss of sovereignty that most don't have a clue about anyway. But it's in between major league games so it's good timing for the 'tv kickers'. Our military is better put to use here on our soil. But there's an 'exciting' news story breaking about a breach in southern border that will keep the sheeples' pulses beating, their attention diverted, their eyes glued to tv and make them more willing to follow Homeland Security directions.
It's an unjust, completely agressive attack, using immoral weapons.
Mr. 404
What would you define as a moral weapon? Is war ever just? And when is an attack non-aggresssive?
I think screeds presents a much better case than, say, 404. :-)
I agree with screens in principle that we must not set the stage for the errosion of national sovereignty. However, assuming hypothetically here that Iraq did pose a real and immediate threat to the US, I would have to support the unilateral use of force against it. But were we to undertake such a war, we shouldn't so much as even look in the UN's general direction. We should just do it.
One consolation today, however, could be that the US has ultimately done what the UN said it did not want us to do. But realistically, this will most likely come back and bite us because we'll probably wind up spinning this whole thing back into the UN's court after it's all over.
In my opinion, if people like Mikhail Gorbachev, Vlad Putin, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and the whole of the UN say, we as Americans, shouldn't do a particular thing, then I think we should actually consider doing it. Just for the good of America!
Just my humble opinion!!!
Christian,
Brady asked for opinions, not cases. However, here are the answers to the points you raise.
moral weapon: a poor phrasing on my part. Objcts cannot be termed as "moral" or "immoral". The US is using weapons in an immoral way.
"Immoral weapons use" and "just war": http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/justwar.html
agressive attack: my poor word choice. I should have used "action" instead of attack.
My views on the war:
1. Saddam has had twelve years to "prove" his innocense--he has used biological weapons against Iraqui Kurds--which tells me he is ruthless and is genocidal.
2. He has built 40 palaces since the last war and his people are starving.
3. There are ties to his funding terrorism.
4. He is rebuilding Babylon and thinks he is a great one and wants to be a world leader.
5. His own people say he is crazy and tell journalists they want him ousted but don't dare show any joy with the americans coming in as the last war many were killed (and their families) for showing joy over the americans.
6. He is a world danger.
I agree that national soverignity is an issue, but when it concerns WMD I think it is a world problem. The NWO is the negative side of a world type government, but I think a world govt is inevitable given WMD. If it were set up as the united States of America was originally (with a lot of power in the states) I could see a world govt helpful. I think Joel's ideas need to be expanded to a healthy world government as a counterbalance to UN and NWO.
I, therefore, believe this to be a just war and hope it is done desively and quickly as possible. I hope we truly do help the Iraqui people attain the freedoms we enjoy.
Susan
A couple of URLs to study the history of this conflict:
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/understandingmiddleeast.htm
Scarter (Susan) I would have to say that I agree with what you've posted. My issue with the links to the mideastweb.org is that the Iraqi timeline is a little lacking.
What the timeline fails to mention is that in 1975 Sadam Hussien, a big-wig deputy in the Iraqi government/regime, met with PM Chirac of France and was gifted with two nuclear power plants and technology to produce nuclear weaponry.
Also, in 1988 when that Iranian airbus was heading towards the Vincennes (a big no-no and any commercial pilot would have known not to fly directly at a naval vessel - unless they were willing and wanting to commit suicide!) the US vessel did everything possible to avoid shooting it down. When the airbus was at a very dangerous distance the vessel felt that it had no choice but to protect itself. Immediately after the 'threat' was shot down, other US vessels in the area were dispatched to render assistance. The assisting vessels, such as the USS Cook, arrived at the scene moments after the incident. What they discovered were sun-baked bodies (such as what one would find in a desert) floating in the water. An interesting note is that most of the 'victims' of the shot down airbus were riddled with bullet holes. These 'passengers' were victims of the Iraqi/Iranian war, placed into an airbus, and then flown directly at a US naval vessel.
Just some little historical tid-bits.
There is so much more to this story that both sides have failed to mention!
I have to agree with Christian that Scarlet's timeline is useful but lacking few very important facts. One of them is the memorable meeting of Saddam Hussein with US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie only 5 days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It is clear from the trascript published in NY Times that US government was fully aware and gave tacit approval for the invasion.
Source:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
Dennis brings up an excellent point. Does our government wear two faces? If so then who's on what side?
I think some articles at www.TheNewAmerican.com can help clarify who is on whose side. Also look up 9/11 on the site, they have some interesting background info regarding how elements in the US government continued to assist and train people who were known to be possible terrorist threats. There are traitors in our midst, ladies and gentlement!
All too true, Brady.
Here's just one I saw at http://www.TheNewAmerican.com
Importing Terrorism
(excerpt)
When news leaked of the $70 million resettlement effort, a bipartisan group of 75 congressmen sent a letter of protest to the White House. "We find it disturbing that American taxpayers must fund the travel of former Iraqi soldiers (who took up arms against our own soldiers) to the U.S.," declared the letter. "Ironically, we provide the [Iraqi POWs] with welfare services while asking our own veterans and service personnel to bear the burdens of deficit reduction."
Alluding to propaganda leaflets used to encourage Iraqi soldiers to surrender, Congressman Clifford Stearns (R-Fla.) wryly commented: "When we dropped those leaflets on the Republican Guard, we did not include a plane ticket to Middle America and welfare entitlement benefits. When those guys realized the war was lost, they changed into civilian clothes and surrendered, and now we’re rolling out the red carpet."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/04-07-2003/vo19no07_terrorism.htm
Rex and Brady....thank you very much! Now let me ask you, and everyone else, a question. What can we do? Seriously, what can we do about this crumbling nation of ours? Who among our 'politicians' is not a politician but is instead a statesman? Who do you know who holds to the Constitution of the United States when they do their legislating? What can we do about those who don't stand up to the bar? It should be obvious that we no longer have a constitutional nation, but instead, we have a political one. What can we do?
For those of us who like to get their information about Iraq war beyond government sanctioned media, I would like to recommend a Russian website. They have sources in Russian intel community and they also listen and publish transcripts of US and Iraq military radio communication. Go to www.iraqwar.ru and then click on English version.
From every angle I see hope coming 1st and foremost from 1 person. Each of us is that 1 person. As long as 1 of us remembers what is possible, what is true, what freedom means and demands then there is hope.
Simplistic notion but much of the time we find ourselves only able to pass the flickering ember of freedom within the reach of another. The structure is not the ultimate goal. The principle is the goal.
At the moment I feel like I'm in a 10 dimensional, 6 sided ping pong game with partners changing at every flick of the wrist.
scarter's list has too many items that are also applicable to our leaders and government to actually prove who or what regime is the worst or most evil. The list shows how one sided views can be. The list shows that mass media is getting its message across.
- On point 1 - what will be our response when weapons inspectors begin dismantling our weapons?
- On point 2 - our leaders are warm and cozy and plenty of US citizens are going without. Plus, being a capitalist, I've never thought wealth should be shared equally. Few leaders live lives of poverty. It would be interesting to compare wealth of various leaders.
- On point 3 - our government has been tied to drug trade, supplying weapons & secrets to any and all, nation building, nation destroying, our XYZ groups all over the globe terrorize in the name of our government.
- On point 4 - US has long been leader in slipping morals, look at our lost youth of today. We are not allowed to set any moral high road, it is not PC. We're at cross purposes as a nation, with only the road to globalism as a national direction. Our leaders don't need to set themselves above others, we do it for them by following blindly. A legacy has been handed down through the US's signing onto UN Treaties that keeps US in the climb to the top of world leadership. Part of the world situation is the jockying for that position.
- On point 5 - thinking your leader is crazy is nothing new. Many in US are wary of the encroaching tyranny of US government's power to enact things like Patriot Act I & its upgrade, Our Lady of Peace Act, loss of Property Rights, etc, etc. These are examples of how our government controls US. Not a tit for tat on your #5 but we'll have to wait until UN troops are policing us to see how we will be allowed to react to foreign insertion.
- On point 6 - All our leaders are a danger to the world! But he isn't the one invading a nation right now is he? No, Iraq didn't fly planes into the twin towers. Check the citizenship of hijackers.
It is difficult for many of us to be reasonable and get our thoughts across in a manner that is helpful. At best we can find common ground in finding a common goal. Disagreeing along the way should not be a deterrent. Disagreement should help us search deeper for our common goal.
My goal is to know the truth. We cannot make the truth pretty. We cannot set ourselves or our government above the truth. Sometimes we are wrong, our government is wrong. Would it be right to put a blind eye to the truth? Our leaders are not US. It is our right and duty, our obligation to set them onto the correct goal.
What is our goal? (Earthly and heavenly goal cannot be easily separated, but for the purposes of this posting I'm interested in the earthly goal.)
Dennis, I've heard that www.iraqwar.ru has been under DOS attack from US domains lately. Apparently they were intercepting US communications and then posting these communications on their website thereby putting our boys and girls in danger. Besides, while the media is biased here in the 'States, I'd be even more cautious believing what I hear from a Russian media organ.
screeds,
I'd like to respond to a few of the "points":
#2 I think there's a distinct difference here. While Bush is probably much more wealthy than the average American, you can't compare a wealthy leader who has constituents who are less wealthy or poor with a leader who is wealthy and actively MAKES his subjects poor through theft, etc..
#4 I wouldn't say the US is the leader in slipping morals. I'd have to hand the blue ribbon for that to Europe. We might take the red ribbon though...
#6 While the hijackers weren't Iraqi, Ramzy Yusef (who carried out the first WTC bombing) was. See the New American article referenced above for more info.
Speaking of www.iraqwar.ru, has anybody noticed how many disgusting, murderous, anti-American comments there are after each and every news item? What does this say about how the US is perceived abroad?
From “Does Anybody Feel A Draft?” - About 1 percent of those who served in Vietnam and 0.2 percent of those killed were in the National Guard. In Iraq about one in four soldiers is in the National Guard and about one in 10 of those killed are from National Guard units.
http://www.antiwar.com/ocregister/draft2.html
Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes
Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein. Forty-six percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, up from 37 percent last month and 31 percent in December . . . Bush’s approval rating has slid from the high levels it reached during the war. It now stands at 46 percent, the lowest level of his presidency in The Times/CBS News Poll, down from 71 percent last March and a high of 89 percent just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29POLL.html?ex=1084205379&ei=1&en=daf9760e96ab0d2e
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
C-B-S-New York Times Poll Finds Public Doubts About Iraq Going Up
The C-B-S News-New York Times survey shows Americans are now evenly split on whether military action in Iraq was the right thing to do. About 47 percent say it was -- down eleven percent from last month. Roughly four in ten say they approve of Bush's handling of the war and his foreign policy. Six in ten says US efforts in Iraq are going poorly. The poll also finds Bush with a slight lead on John Kerry in the presidential race.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1824470
Guard deployments spark state security concerns
Almost 42 percent – or 144,000 -- of the states’ 345,000 Army National Guard troops currently are deployed or are preparing for deployment, compared with 32 percent just two months ago. Large numbers are being sent to the hot spots of Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=367596
'Nightline' Reading Names of All Iraq Dead
Ted Koppel will devote the entire half-hour of "Nightline" Friday to reading names and showing photographs of the more than 500 U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq, ABC announced Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118479,00.html
April was the first month that all five services had fatalities in Iraq. At http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_nation_world/article/0,1874,ABIL_7961_2850661,00.html it says:
“As the one-year anniversary of the end of major combat in Iraq arrived Saturday, it also marked the close of a brutal month that saw the death of one out of six U.S. troops lost in the entire war. An analysis of April’s toll also reveals that it was the bloodiest month for America’s reservists and the first to bring fatalities in all five armed services. It simultaneously saw a spike in suicide car bombing attacks and a return to the more traditional combat of small arms firefights and mortar attacks.”
At Joel’s new web site http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com I saw this headline:
A Troubling Absence of Specifics for the Next Steps in Iraq
The United States faces a singular problem in Iraq: Nobody seems to know what to do next.
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood043004.html
As Paul Craig Roberts wrote in his commentary, “The Great Satan,” at http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=2455 “With the US now guilty of war crimes as defined by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, our sanctimonious president will never again be able to wear American virtue on his sleeve without the entire world laughing in his face.”
Yet Bush continues to back his “Mission Accomplished” remarks, declaring an end to combat, when he stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln one year ago.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118674,00.html
Notice that’s a Fox News story link above?
Cheney Praises Fox News Channel
Vice-president calls network “more accurate” than others
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53974-2004Apr29?language=printer, so what does this tell you about Fox News?
Iraq 2004 - What Went Wrong
In 2004, Iraq went badly wrong - except for supporters of the insurgency, in which case it went grimly well. 2005 does not hold out much hope of an improvement, although there are still some optimists around who feel that the elections on 30 January will prove a milestone.
http://www.rense.com/general61/wewo.htm
Economy, Iraq Weighing Down Bush Popularity
Country Losing Ground on Most National Problems
Americans are critical of President Bush's job performance in many policy areas, but negative opinions of his handling of the economy and Iraq are doing the most damage to his overall approval rating, which now stands at 43%. Just 35% approve of the president's handling of the economy, down from 43% in February and 45% in January.
With the level of violence rising in Iraq, Bush's ratings also have slipped on that issue from 45% in January, to 40% in February, and 37% currently. Over the same period, positive opinions of his handling of foreign policy have fallen 10 points, to 38%. There has been greater stability in Bush's marks on energy policy and Social Security, but he gets positive ratings of only about 30% on both issues (energy policy 31%, Social Security 29%).
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 11-15 among 1,502 Americans, shows that Bush gets positive marks from a majority of the public on just one issue his handling of terrorist threats. Currently, 57% approve of his job performance in that area.
More at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=244
I think the increasing allegations and apparent evidence that the Iraq war was started illegally (unconstitutionally) for immoral and misstated reasons has turned many Americans against the war and against President Bush & Co. for getting us into it. And there are many Americans, especially those living as close to the Mexican border as we live, who think our military ought to be used to stop the invasion across the border from Mexico. It also seems to many of us that the war in Iraq is beig hyped to distract attention away from serious problems here at home including encouragement of illegal immigration by President Bush & Co., falling social security benefits, loss of jobs, outsourcing of jobs, devaluation of our money (and savings), decreasing national sovereignty due to encroachments of the UN, NAFTA, etc., and now CAFTA, and you name it.
I believe that the puppet masters who are controlling Presiden Bush & Co. are deliberately destroying America. The war in Iraq contributes to that plan. The world government they seek to create can come together only after the United States is out of the way. The rest of the world can federate any time it wants to, but a vital, economically strong, Christian United States would have at its disposal the spiritual and material force to prohibit a worldwide satanically driven dictator from winning his battle. With America free and at large, Satan's schemes will at best be only partially successful.
As for President Bush taking the United States of America into a war against Iraq, I have believed all along that the U.S. never should have gone in there in the first place because I believed all along that America was not immediately threatened by Saddam. The powers that be have done a really great marketing job on the American public with the Iraq War. They have convinced most Americans that one must support the war and the president if one is a loyal American, and anyone who opposes the president or the war is a traitor, even if one supports the men and women fighting the war. The U.S. Congress illegally allowed the President to invade a country that posed no immediate or direct threat to America. I suspect there were no weapons of mass destruction, and even if there were, the U.S. had no more right to object than Saddam had a right to object to U.S. WMDs. And I’m not convinced that Iraq was even building nuclear weapons capability. I don’t believe Saddam Hussein's regime had any connection to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and was not responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I believe the powers that be behind the United States’ government were responsible for that, including the creation of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to inflict terror on Americans. All the reasons given by the administration to justify this war I consider to be false. The President and his administration originally claimed the attack on Iraq was needed to fight terrorism. Now they insist that the effort is needed to build democracy in Iraq. It is not America’s place to tell the Iraqi people what kind of government they should have, any more than its America’s right to deny Iraq WMDs. Certainly not as long as The U.S.A. and other countries maintain them.
Do these beliefs make me:
1. Anti-American / a traitor
2. Stupid
3. Misinformed
4. Partly correct
5. Pretty well on target
Opinions, please
#5, Ralph. As usual, you're pretty well on target.
Les
Yeah, Ralph. I think you are certainly in the right ball-park and may have even hit a home run.
But you are preaching to the choir.
How do we reach a larger audience? The mass media, through which patriotic Americans should be informed and which should be their voice, is so heavily influenced by our enemies that we have been effectively silenced.
Their is freedom of speech for pornographers and left-wing character assassins but none for those who are faithful to our God, to our country, and to its Constitution.
If "Righteousness exalteth a nation," what does wickedness do?
Cyrus 35
I've read again today in one of the NewsWithViews articles that "Hermann Göring, Hitler's second in command, reportedly made a telling statement about the propaganda effects of war during the Nuremberg trials. He said, "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
I actually struggle to think of ways to reach other people. I'm rather ineloquent in speaking to others about these things, especially when the opportunity takes my by surprise.
Any of you folks belong to the JBS? They seem to make some headway in reaching people.
Re: “I actually struggle to think of ways to reach other people.”
As Joel and Dr. Stan have often said on Radio Liberty, “You just have to go after them, one by one. One individual at a time.”
Start by looking in your own backyard, Ralph. Teach one child and that child/teenager may tell hundreds—even thousands over time at school or other places they go—what they learned. Warn one neighbor about what’s really going on behind the scenes in the world, and it isn’t long until the entire neighborhood has heard your message.
Word spreads fast…quicker than most people think, especially these days. With the Internet it’s like we all live in the same small town where everyone knows what everyone else said or is doing, sometimes even as it’s still happening or within 24 hours! The ugly side of the Internet is we lose our cherished privacy, but the bright side is there's never been a better, faster way to spread news or truths.
By reading your last and some of your other posts as well, Ralph, I sense that you have probably reached far more people already than you realize…and if you haven’t yet, by the time it’s all said and done, I have no doubt that you will leave your mark in this golden trail we are all blazing to try and preserve our remaining liberties.
Re: “I'm rather ineloquent in speaking to others about these things, especially when the opportunity takes me by surprise.” What I do is read World Affairs Brief and other good reports over and over until I can almost memorize or echo every word, just like we all used to have to memorize things in school. Study what you think you might need like you’re cramming for a college exam and then when you’re suddenly called upon to come forward and speak, you’ll do fine. Also, pray and ask the Lord beforehand that when you must give an impromptu speech or defend liberty without advance notice or preparation, His Spirit will wash over you and fill your mouth with the proper words or prompt you with memories of names, facts, or whatever it is you need to recall to fight the good fight.
Even if you err and drop your sword sometimes, pick it back up and defend liberty again. What’s important is—Never, never give up! Never let depression or discouragement make you permanently bury the sword of truth. Liberty will still be there and will be your friend, long, long after other friends break their word and fade away. Liberty is one thing in this world that is worth defending forever, and AT ANY PRICE!
Lately I’ve been busy training my two boys, both in the 18-35 age group, and carefully coaching them and reminding them constantly of things I’ve learned or read from the best of the best—Joel, Dr. Monteith, News With Views, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, etc. I know for a fact that my sons spread the word and reached a tremendous number of people in a very short time as they travel and socialize or give speeches far more often than I do.
Think of the truth as a dazzling display of fireworks in the sky. Whose role is more important? The spectators'? Those businesses or people who pay to sponsor the fireworks? Or that lone, unseen guy or single small company that works quietly, diligently behind the scenes, doing all the hard, sometimes dangerous or tiring work, of actually setting off the fireworks? I see today’s genuine truth-seekers—and you, Ralph—like the latter. Onward and upward.
Thanks each of you for your feedback. I get discouraged sometimes and appreciate the advice and encouragement. I put the same Friday 30 Dec. post on another forum and got so far 7 votes for "pretty well on target", 3 for "partly correct" and 5 for "misinformed". None so far for "stupid" or "anti-American / traitor". But at least it got some discussion going and shows the variations of opinion we have among concerned folks, and what we will have to deal with when and if we ever try to get together to put the country back together again.
I've been getting a bit concerned that this site has been rather quiet lately.
Don't be fooled by the quiet. All of us writers and artists know that "quiet" usually means a transition period, a "time out" for developing tougher new strategies, regrouping, rethinking, planning for the formation of new projects and ideas.
The InfoWars battle is like any other type of warfare. As Sun Tzu once said in his classic "The Art of War":
"Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
Experience has taught me that there really never is any true "quiet," at least not on earth. When someone or something appears "quiet," look out! Big changes are on the way.
Ralph, read this: http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
...and instead of thinking in terms of troops, armor and on the ground forces, use Sun Tzu's same strategies to fight psychologically in battles pertaining to information and spiritual warfare. And then tell me again later how quiet you think it is in here.
Jake,
I have two different translations of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." I found that studying it helped me to understand some of the things that Red China is doing, especially "unsymmetrical warfare." You might also find "The Coming Conflict With China," by Richard Bernstein and Ross Munro very illuminating.
The books about China written by Timperlake & Triplett ("Year of the Rat," and "Red Dragon Rising") and also by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times ( "The China Threat" ) are very good in describing the threat and what certain individuals (even those in our government) are doing to help the Red Chinese by betraying us.
Cyrus35
Cyrus35,
Thanks for the book recommendations. I’ll definitely check them out.
Re: “I found that studying it [“The Art of War”] helped me to understand some of the things that Red China is doing, especially ‘unsymmetrical warfare.’"
Studying “The Art of War” helped me to understand not only physical, psychological and spiritual warfare on the big things, but I even often spot the same general strategies offered by Sun Tzu popping up when I overhear people in petty arguments or observe courtroom battles and see two attorneys arguing, hear two spouses bickering, siblings, neighbors, co-workers squabbling, etc. The party that applies Sun Tzu's strategies, whether knowingly if he or she is familiar with "The Art of War," or accidentally, almost always winds up as the victor.
I think “The Art of War” should be recommended reading for all seniors before they step out of high school because these days it takes being knowledgeable in warfare strategies to survive in life’s wild, wicked jungle.
Jake,
My only caveat would come from the advice of a wise man who said: "To educate a man intellectually without educating him morally is to create a menace to society." Or words to that effect.
Studying Sun Tzu would certainly seem to be requisite for anyone hoping to understand and defeat the enemies of freedom... especially the Red Chinese.
Cyrus35
I think the war in Iraq in very important. It began because Iraq supports terrorism and was not complying with UN inspections. The war was not a pre-eptive attack, but was the enforcement of sanctions required of Saddam since the Gulf war, maintainly no WMDs allowed. The coalition is not a UN coalition, and is more closely related to NATO if you need to select an organization.
Now that Saddam has been removed from power, we are fighting a different war in Iraq. We are no longer fighting Iraqis, but we are fighting Islamic Extremists from all of the surrounding countries. Islamic Extremist are at war with us, whether we admit it or not, and that war is being fought in Iraq. Al Qaeda is among some of the terrorist there who the media refers to as the insurgency or militants or gunmen. We are going to fight against Islamic Extremists until they change their minds about attacking us. It is better that we fight them now, and in Iraq, than for us to wait, let them grow stronger and more confident and then attack us in America.
We are fighting a Global War on Terror, and we are fighting many of these terrorists in Iraq. We need to stick it out until Islamic fundamentalist decide to change their goals, and leave America alone.
Dear Peter,
I don’t question your patriotic intentions in your support for the benevolent government you defend. I’ve been where you are most of my life and have always voted ‘conservative’. It kind of goes with my military and southern background. If you’d like to go to school as I have and do a little research, you’ll find yourself in a very deep rabbit hole, but with a clearer picture of the world.
As for our reasons for going to war with Iraq in the first place, please consider the state of the USD (that’s US dollar). This fiat exchange has been teetering on collapse for decades now, albeit with the support of the Money Masters requiring oil-buying nations to keep this currency as their central bank’s reserve. In other words, if you want oil, you have to buy it in USD’s. Iraq had started to undermine that policy in March of 2003 by setting up trades in Euros. If that had not been stopped, the long reign of the USD was over. Partisans want to say we went to war for oil, or to eliminate WMD’s. Although Saddam had WMD’s, his biggest was oil-trading Euros.
As for the continuing struggle, there’s no doubt there are Islamic extremists who want to kill us, but these are pawns, and nothing new for a thousand years. The Front Office contains conspirators who wish to enslave all mankind, which is also nothing new. These are communists, and this is the Beast you read about in Revelations. Like it or not, we are steadily marching towards a world wide controlled entity. There is strong evidence that much of the insurgency in Iraq is staged by what might seem to be from the ‘good guys’. There are witnesses (new Iraqi police recruits), whose vehicles were remotely blown up, when they went to ‘report in’ using payphones instead of their issued, malfunctioning cell phones.
Make no mistake, when our military is sufficiently spent in these ‘entangling’, foreign, unconstitutional forays, and our economy is on its back, our nation will fall prey to these cheating, conspiring communists. That’s bad enough, but what pains me infinitely more is knowing we have traitors at our highest levels of government who are in on this secret combination. As absurd as it seems on face value, the more research one takes into the 9-11 tragedy, the more one has to come to the conclusion that there was great complicity, or yes, conspiracy in that event—THE event that’s ushered in such calamities as Pre-emption and Homeland Security. Think about it, and ponder why this so-called conservative President hasn’t closed our borders when he had the perfect opportunity to do so.
Moo
Moo,
Thank you for you input. I understand the oil issues and how they played a role in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran as well, but the reason we went into Iraq was over Saddam’s failure to comply with sanctions; that is what was presented to the world, and is the reason we went in. I was stationed in Iraq and spoke with members of 13 other countries also stationed there, and nobody thought we were there to steal oil. That is a claim made by the enemies and communist fronts such as No Blood for Oil and International ANSWER.
I am also familiar with the Euro as it is the currency of the country I am in. I see your point about terrorists always existing and being small players in the past. But the Islamic threat is not only about the terrorists, it is about them being capable of leading a worldwide Muslim revolt. The Weathermen Underground, SLA, and Red Army Faction attempted to do the same thing, but couldn't win the support of the people. The Islamics are different. We have already witnessed their responses to the Pope's comments and the Danish cartoons; in each case they murdered people and burnt down embassies unrelated to the event. They are a greater threat than any previous terrorists before them. They have many cells in the US that can do damage to it. They may cause countries to back down to them as they did with Spain, and if they cause America to abandon our allies, our allies will abandon us, and we will not only be vulnerable to Islamics but China and other threats as well.
I have also gone to school and have completed a graduate program in Terrorism Studies as I continue towards my MS. I have studied international law and am not unfamiliar with these events. I have served in Iraq and I know people there right now, as well as someone through most of the previous rotations. It is a subject that I had vested interest in researching.
I don't believe in a one world government, whether ZOG or UN. We wouldn't allow the UN to take over, because we are enemies with many of the nations in it. The UN is also a weak organization that doesn't even back up its own sanctions. The UN is not part of the coalition in Iraq. America is not controlled by the Jews, if it were then Israel wouldn't be in such bad shape, and under constant threat. America is not an imperial empire as the communist claim either; America is not interested in running other countries, we assist them in forming their own governments. The America imperialism that ohter countries complain about has to do with their publics intest in buying hollywood produced movies and eating at Burger King, it doesn't have anything to do with America trying to take over their countries. They resent that their countrymen like our culture better than their own. We do not force our culture on anyone, and if people did want to eat at Burger King then certainly no body would invest in a Burger King in the area.
I do not think the America government was involved in 9/11. Communists, Jihadists, and others who are against America have promoted this concept. Why would the America government wish to murder its' own people? And if it was a false flag operation, then why murder so many? People who wish to view America as evil have no problem making up anything. If this entire thing is about oil, then why who we stage a terrorist attack those pretended motive is to remove American forces from all of the countries that have oil? What about the theory that Israelis flew the planes so that we would support their 'occupation' of Palestine? If that were the case why not blame HAMAS or Palestinian Islamic Jihad for the attack? If we did we could have taken them out instead of those in Afghanistan.
I've watched some of the 9/11 conspiracy theory movies and I was not impressed. Some people say the same things about the Oklahoma City Bombing. Some say Timothy McVeigh was a government agent and the whole thing was done to make the militia movements look bad. Others have said that the government planted several bombs in Oklahoma City (as well as in the Twin Towers) in order to cause the amount of damage. These so called experts did not realize how McVeigh's bomb was constructed at the time. Some have claimed the US government started the beheadings in Iraq as a way to shift the focus away from the prison torture photos. If you believe the conspiracy theorists then you would have to admit that no crime has ever been done to America, and any atrocity that we have faced has been staged by our own government to trick us. They would have you believe that American soldiers are killing themselves in order to make the rest of the world think a war is taking place that really isn’t. They would have you believe that the government is evil and is capable of pulling off these elaborate hoaxes involving many people that are so loyal that no one ever tells the truth. It is odd that the promoters of such conspiracies also happen to have other issues against America.
The concept of Pre-emption is not warranted as Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998, and we have since declared a global war on terrorism. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Saddam were all given advance warning, and were told exactly what would happen if they ignored our demands. The attacks that have taken place were not pre-emptive, and since we actually were attacked first, under article 51 of the UN charter we can attack anyone that is a threat in defense of our country until the UN Security Council removes the danger from us (which is unlikely).
The department of Homeland Security was a good idea and was needed. Our federal agencies needed to work together a long time ago, if they did events like Ruby Ridge might not have taken place. Although the department of Homeland Security was a good idea, it was not necessary to stage 9/11 in order to reform a few government agencies.
The borders are no joke and needs to be addressed promptly. I also agree that communism is still a viable threat, which has its hooks in our media and universities.
Thanks for your feedback.
Peter
I am of the opinion that our military is being deliberately spent in unconstitutional wars, and our economy is being put on its back, our nation is falling prey to these cheating, conspiring globalists intent of creating first regional and later a single world government. We have traitors at our highest levels of government who are in on this secret combination. I agree strongly with Moo that "the more research one takes into the 9-11 tragedy, (and in my case especially the OKC bombing,) the more one has to come to the conclusion that there was great complicity, or yes, conspiracy in that event—THE event that’s ushered in such calamities as Pre-emption and Homeland Security. Think about it, and ponder why this so-called conservative President hasn’t closed our borders when he had the perfect opportunity to do so."
Ralph,
WAR
The purpose of the Military is to provide for the common defense. In order for a war to be unconstitutional it must fail in the intent to protect America, and it must be against the wishes of Congress. I do not think we have taken any action against the wishes of Congress, and many nations in the world have also supported our efforts. The wars have cost money and have effected our economy, but that is because the American people cannot be bothered or pulled away from their TVs long enough to make a contribution to the war effort. If you look at the efforts made by Americans in the past wars, the difference is very clear http://www.propaganda.ws/american.htm . The wars we are fighting now are American wars, but the American people are now spoiled, and are unwilling to put forth the effort of those in the past. In the past, the wars were sponsored by the American people; they bought war bonds, rationed food, and donated supplies. Women worked in factories making bombs. Now the American people leave everything up to the government, they aren’t building bomb shelters in their backyards or practicing civil defense. Although some people have complained about the Department of Homeland Security, the majority of the American people are unwilling to put forth the effort to protect themselves, and charge the government with an even greater responsibility to protect them.
GLOBALISM
Who are these Globalists? They certainly are not Corporations. Corporations are already global and do not want a global government. A global government would prevent large Corporations from exploiting third world countries for their labor. An good global conspiracist would have to admit that corporations would not want that. The United Nations isn’t seeking a one world order. The United Nations houses many nations that are enemies with each other, and humanitarian and other groups that do not even represent countries. The United Nations is weak and ineffective, they may provide a place for nations to attempt to work out their differences peacefully, but the UN is never going to take over the world. Communists and other members of the political left may attempt to spread fear of the US or UN as being global imperialist, but that is because they wish to thwart and discredit the system anyway they can. Their hope is to destroy the current status quo and replace it with a communist/socialist utopia.
9/11
If you indulge in fantasies about a corrupt big brother government long enough, eventually you might start accepting them as a fact. If you watch Michael Moore’s movies close enough you would be able to see his lies and the spin he places on events. For example, in Bowling for Columbine he filmed a couple of black people and said that Canada had just as many minorities as America, which isn’t true. In the same film he asked the owner of a shoot range if the guy knew any people that had guns. Surprise, the owner of a shooting range did know some people, but the fact remains that neither of these are representative samples of Canadian society. Another example, in the documentary ‘Behind the Hatrid’ the commentators states that ‘Israel’s allies’ conducted the Sabra and Shatila massacres of Palestinians, and they quickly started showing mutilated bodies. In fact, Israel was assisting Lebanon in fighting the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) who had been conducting terrorist attacks against Lebanon and Israel. The Lebanese Christian Militia was not working with Israel, but were an independent group of Lebanese citizens defending themselves against the PLO terrorist attacks in their country. Osama Bin Laden has even made statements blaming this massacre on Israel, but the massacre was actually conducted by the Lebanese in Lebanon. The above examples were just to show how easily the media or conspiracy theorists can get away with spin.
Now on to 9/11. Some conspiracy theorists have revealed Operation Northwoods as evidence of the government’s ability to conduct false flag operations. Okay, some booze brainstormed a possible idea that was rejected. The important thing to remember is that the United States didn’t do it; it was only an idea and shortly after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer suggested it he was removed from his position. Another thing to remember is that the plan was to switch an real aircraft with a remote controlled one to prevent the loss of life. In order for the government to be responsible for 9/11 they would have needed to be willing to kill 50,000 Americans. Sure, Operation Northwoods was in bad taste, but even the government of that time period did not go for it. Back then we would still carpet bomb during war, and other things that we would not even think about today. Operation Northwoods does not prove anything.
Now lets answer a few questions about 9/11. Some have claimed the US government detonated nuclear weapons in order to bring down the WTC towers. If that were true, why wouldn’t they have done so when the first plane hit? Waiting until thousands of people to gather and for the event to be video taped would be the stupidest thing the government could do (if they planned on getting away with it). If bombs were responsible for bringing down the buildings, how come none of the people that were there noticed it? Police, firefighters, and many people were there, why aren’t they making the allegations instead of people that have only watch footage taken from a distance? Why, blame Osama and the Taliban for the incident if it was really done for Israel or globalists? The event has help neither Israel or Globalist?
OKLAHOMA CITY
The book, ‘Secrets worth Dying For’ claims that Timothy McVeigh was a government agent, who staged the bombing as a false flag operation aimed at destroying militias. This book was written by death row inmates. The book alleges that Timothy McVeigh did not fail out of Special Forces training, get mad and quit the Army, but claims he became a government operative who infiltrated the militia/white supremacist movement, conducted the bombing, and had the government fake his death on death row. Lets examine some of these claims. If Timothy McVeigh wanted to present the idea that he hated the Army, would it help his cover to attempt to join the National Guard shortly after his discharge to get right back in? Would about becoming a security guard, will that help him hook up with the criminal elements? No, his actions are not the actions of someone who is on a secret spy mission. For the sake of argument, lets say that McVeigh was a government agent who kill 168 people and is now on death row; if you were such a person, would you telling some idiot criminals your entire plan shortly before the government fakes you death? If he made it that far, why would he blab when he was so close to success? He wouldn’t. Especially if he was planning on the government faking his death instead if really executing him (which they would do if they thought he revealed the plan). Revealing the plan would also provide the government to snuff him out after the fact, why would the government allowing McVeigh to live out his life under a different identity if McVeigh betrayed them? They wouldn’t. If McVeigh was an operative aimed at discrediting the White Supremacist, NRA, and Militias movements, then why didn’t McVeigh make any public statements associating himself with those groups? If he conducted the bombing to discredit those groups why wouldn’t he do so when he had the chance?
CONSPIRACIES
When studying Strategic Intelligence or other topics relating to National Security, the plots of Hollywood movies are not included in the courses. How stupid do you think the people in the government would have to be, to copy the plot of ‘Spies like Us’ or ‘The Long Kiss Goodnight’ as our national strategy? The government is not going to steal the plot from some Chevy Chase movie and use it as our national strategy.
MEXICAN BORDER
The Border is a big problem, and needs to be dealt with. The problem is HOW to close the borders. In case you do not know, our military does not have enough members to guard the Mexican border. The land border with Mexico stretches some 1,951 miles. To seal the border, using manpower, you would need two place a two-man listening post every 50 yards. At two men every 50 yards, that would require 137,350 people. That does not include people for rotating shifts etc…. We can build a giant wall, but someone needs to also guard it or they will simply blow through it or dig under it. Closing the border is necessary, but it is not something that is easy to do. It is a priority, but the best option has not surfaced yet. Do you have any ideas?