Saturday, September 27, 2008

Pre-Remedial Lesson For Democrats On "The War"

Okay... after listening to Obama stumble through the Democrat revisionist history of the war on terror for the hundredth time... as a public service, here is a summary of the war on terror and how the liberal Democrats who claim Republicans took our eye off the ball, have never actually even had their eye on "the ball." (Unless you define "the ball" as power and control of the congress and the white house)

Try to follow along... I'll make it as simple as possible.

1- Al Qaeda declared war (Jihad) on the US and launched attacks repeatedly against the US for more than a decade before 2001, including under the Clinton administation. The first world trade center and the USS cole bombings just to name a couple.

2- Saddam Hussein (one of the most brutal dictators on the planet) increased his efforts to aquire nuclear weapons, defied weapons inspectors and the UN, violated the no fly zones and payed suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Israel. President Clinton defined Iraq as a serious threat to the US and world peace saying the regime must be removed by any means required. (Iraqi Liberation Act)

3- September 11, 2001: Al Qaeda carries out plan to fly Airliners into the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. Osama Bin Laden claims credit for Al Qaeda for the attack. The world changed. The war changed. We changed.

4- U.S. launched attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in a matter of weeks had virtually destroyed most of Taliban control in that country driving them into the remote regions perhaps even out of the country.

5- Meanwhile, dictator terrorist Saddam Hussein continued to defy the UN, the weapons inspectors and the US in his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons yet was still given one last chance to disarm and open up to inspections. He declined. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Saddam was seeking WMD and it was only a matter of time till he aquired them.

6- Considering the consequenses of a nuclear Iraq, (with full congressional support from the majority of Democrats) the US and it's allies launch an all-out attack on Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard Army in Iraq easily defeating them in a matter of weeks causing Hussein to have to run and hide in a small hole in the ground until captured by US forces and later hanged to death following a fair trial by Iraqi's.

7- In the meantime, seeing what they believed to be an opportunity to take control of Iraq and drive the US out, Al Qaeda (Sunni) as well as Shiite Armies from Iran began to flood into Iraq from neighboring countries (like Syria). Bin Laden himself declared on many occasions that Iraq was the central battle against America, sending every available resourse into Iraq with the plan to cause a civil war and drive US forces out of Iraq. The war changed from a war against Iraq... to a war on terror, a war against Shiite radicals and Sunni radicals (Al Qaeda).
Yes, the same people who perpetrated the 9/11 attack on the US. The connection democrats have never made and refuse to admit exists.

8- Al Qaeda launced attacks on Shiite Mosques and civilians and in return Shiite radicals like the Hojjatieh attacked innocent Sunni's in the effort to creat the impression of a genuine civil war. It almost worked.

9- Democrats and the US media fell for the "hidden ball trick" and perpetuated the efforts to create that civil war by playing along here in the US.
Democrats turned against the effort and claimed we could never win, that this was Vietnam, that there was a civil war in Iraq and that we should pull out of Iraq immediately leaving it to Al Qaeda. (Exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do) Violence increased, Al Qaeda and the Sadre Army battled each other via innocent civilians on each side... with suicide bombings, car bombings and IED's. The media ate it up. Many Democrats to this day refuse to admit Al Qaeda was even in Iraq, showing their complete lack of understanding and their losing track of "the ball'.

10- General David Petraeus took over command of forces in Iraq with a new strategy. The surge was born. US forces got the Al Sadre Army to draw down it's attacks against Al Qaeda and Sunni's relieving one side of the so called "civil war". The attacks by US forces were focused on Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was crippled, then ultimately virtually defeated in their efforts and wiped out in Iraq. Al Qaeda forces then began to flee back to Afghanistan and other areas.

11- Iraq is becoming a free, stable, democratic friend to the US in the region... their economy is booming and they are currently building a large theme park in Bagdhad with the worlds largest ferris wheel... much to the dismay of Democrats, Obama, the liberal media and those who were cheering for a US defeat in Iraq who were certain they would get that defeat.

12- US forces in Afghanistan have been increased (and will continue to increase) as troops have been pulled out of Iraq, focusing on renewed activities by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that country as a result of their (Al Qaeda's) failure in Iraq.

2- a We did not take our eye off the ball... what democrats failed to see is that the ball moved and we kicked the hell out of it... and still are.

UPDATE: 11/18/08- Iraq violence at lowest level since before the war, Iraq army taking over most provinces, Iraq economy growing strong, US military coming out and going to Afghanistan and home. Iraq has a chance for success.
God Bless America

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Red S Tater said...

My liberal friend Otter (link in right sidebar) disagrees with my assessment of the war... (shocking) and believes that the attack on the USS COLE, The Kobar Towers and countless other Jihad attacks on the US including the attacks on September 11, 2001 were nothing more than simple random criminal acts deserving of nothing more than sending some nice policemen over to the middle east to investigate and perhaps arrest those involved... or at least tell them that wasn't nice.

Then maybe the world would love us.

Poor liberals... I try to give them the truth and they just can't handle it... so stuck in their ways and stubborn... close-minded you might even say.
Oh well...

9:19 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

It was a criminal act Red. In order for it to be an act of war the act would have to be carried out by an army. Al Qaeda is not an army. They are not sponsored by any country. They are not as organized as an army (although they are organized). They are a bunch of loosely affiliated criminals. Criminals are all they are.

If you are going to consider it an act of war everytime someone gets killed than perhaps you would like to go back and re-write the entire law code of the United States. Be my guest.

I can handle the truth my friend. When it is actually the truth and not the opinions of someone that believes everything their government tells them.

11:02 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Not so otter, you are using last centuries definition of war and armies. We are fighting a new war now otter... it is a religious war against a religion that runs governments... a religion that controls governments and the people who live there with an iron fist.

A brutal, corrupt religion otter that is being used to wage a real live 100% genuine war against America and countries promoting freedom of religion.

Your failure to see and recognize this is responsible for your inaccurate view of the war, the world and our future.

I cannot debate with someone who refuses to recognize the reality of the situation we are debating.

Stick your head back in the sand and hope I'm wrong... that's your best shot otter... sorry man.


1:14 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

okay, so now we are going to grade school definitions. so here is one for you:

As defined by the AMERICAN Heritage Dictionary:

war - a state of OPEN, armed, and often prolonged conflict carried on between NATIONS.

There are several reasons for war. Religion is just one of them.

The reason we are and have been fighting the world's wars in the past...oh, let us just say 75-100 years, is for money. Pure and simple.

12:23 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

yes otter and there are 57 states in the Islamic "nation".

Even if everything you portray is true... the fact remains that Islamic Jihad is being waged against us and we have but two choices.
1- do what you propose and ignore it, apologize and submit to it.

2- defeat it.

I know which you choose so google this word and become familiar with it.

11:30 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

I already know that word. I don't need to look it up.

According to their scriptures they (Muslims) are asked to treat and deal with non-Muslims fairly.

Obviously, there are extremists within that religion that do not follow those words but that is not different than pro-life groups that bomb abortion clinics or to a lesser put it bluntly...people that claim to be Christian but are complete assholes to non-Christians.

There are countries dictating by shia law that exlude non-Muslims from participating in the political process.

Now, while that would never happen here in the United States (although it has, only on a different level with different groups of people), the fact that it happens in those other countries is a completely different matter. That is their right as a sovereign nation. If the citizens of that country do not like it, they have the freedom to leave and go to another country. And the government of that country has every right to exclude whoever they seem fit from participating in the political process.

That is none of our business unless it is happening in our country. It is none of our business because it is NOT our country!

Our country does not allow people, for instance, that have been convicted of a felony not to vote. Does that not restict their rights? Let us take as an example a person who commits a felony, goes to prison and serves his or her time, paying their debt to society. After they get out of prison, they are then considered a second class citizen because of their history and are not allowed to participate in our political process. Well, that policy is our right as a sovereign nation.

How would you like it if the United Kingdom continually spoke ill of us because of this policy? Do you think we would change it? I don't think so. And I wouldn't be surprised if our government got offended and considered it an act of war and went over and bombed them for it and then called the United Kingdom and authoritarian government that provoked us and used that as an excuse for the war.

So....what was your point of bringing up that word again?

12:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home