US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

tico

To clarify...you said

Quote:

Seriously, I would be surprised if your last 50 links have the range of my links. After all, my last link was to starregistry.com. I'm willing to make a gentleman's wager in this regard.

I just checked starregistry. I assumed it referred to your last quote in our conversation - the list of democrat statements re WOMD but find it is something quite non-political. The subject of our disagreement here relates to political topics/discussion and the range of sources we both bring to bear on that subject (as contrasted with, say, car mechanics, football statistics and celebrities). So that's how I've preceded with the count of my posts and I'll continue in that manner with yours. You still in on the wager? (I'm going to do the same with your posts in any case).

.

Bush ! huh ! yeah !
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Uh huh uh hu-uh .

Bush ! huh ! yeah !
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Say it again y'all .

Bush . huh! Look out !
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Listen to me .

Ahhh Bush.
I despise, cuz he is a nincompoop and causes destruction.
Bush means i want oil and i want it now !! screw you guys !!
while their sons go off to fight and lose their lives .

I said, Bush . huh! Good God y'all .
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Say it again .

Bush . huh ! Whoa whoa whoa Lord .
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Listen to me .

Bush .
You ain't nothin' but a heart breaker.
Bush .
Friend only, to the undertaker .

Ahhh Bush .
is an enemy to all mankind .
The thought of Bush blows my mind .
Bush has caused unrest within the younger generation
Induction, then destruction . Who wants to die ?

Ahhh Bush . huh ! Good God y'all .
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Say it, say it, say it .

Bush . huh ! Uh huh yeah, huh !
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Listen to me .

Bush .
You ain't nothin' but a heart breaker .
Bush .
He's got one friend, that's the undertaker .


Ahhh Bush .
has shattered, many a young man's dreams .
Made him disabled, bitter and mean .
Life is but too short and precious,
We all fight Bush each day .
Bush can't give life, it can only take it away .

Ahhh war. huh! Good God y'all.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'! Say it again.

Bush . huh ! Whoa whoa whoa Lord .
What are you good for ?
Absolutely nothin' ! Listen to me .

Bush .
You ain't nothin' but a heart breaker .
Bush .
Friend only, to the undertaker .

wooo !!

Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today ?
Bush is a dang idiot
and that Mofo's gotta pay !!!!

Ahhh Bush . huh ! Good God y'all .
What are you good for ?
You tell 'em. nothin' ! Say it, say it, say it, say it .

Bush . huh ! Good God now, huh !
What are you good for ?
Stand up and shout it. nothin' !

07 August, 2005 04:41

malignancy = people who mass murder civilians and people who are accomplices of people who mass murder civilians.

malignancy pursues the doctrine of DAMD (i.e., Die And Make Die).

Lovers-of-liberty pursue the doctine of LALL (i.e., Live And Let Live).

malignancy must be exterminated before they exterminate lovers-of-liberty.

No one has a god-given-right to any area of the earth. One's rights to an area of the earth are governed by the prevailing human rule of law in that area.

…
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
…

…
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
...

Frank Gaffney
National Review on Line
August 04, 2005, 8:19 a.m.
God Save Us
The West is in a death struggle with Islamofascism.


So — despite possible dissidents <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201673.html> — the Bush administration says we are no longer waging the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Instead, we are told that it has become the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). If we are not careful, the changes in focus implied by this new nomenclature could give rise to conditions described by a new acronym: GODSAVEUS (Global Order Defined by Sharia Afflicted by Virulent Enemies on the United States).

Such an evocative handle could become appropriate if the administration’s rhetorical shift compounds an already acute problem: the perception the American people have been given that, whatever this conflict is called, it is somebody else’s problem — that of the military, the government, our allies overseas, etc. They may continue to perceive that their contribution to the war effort (er, struggle) is confined to going shopping.

Let’s get a few things straight. This may be a war unlike any other we have ever fought, but it is a war. Nothing less than our survival as a free, democratic and secular nation is at stake.

We confront in this war ideologically driven enemies, not simply the instrument of their aggression, terrorism. They are bent on our destruction just as surely as were their predecessors — the Nazis, the fascists, and the Communists. Their stated goal is to establish a global “caliphate” subject to a repressive, Taliban-like interpretation of sharia.

Such ambitions may sound as absurd as did Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. But, consider the definition of jihad officially issued by the Islamic Affairs Department of Saudi Arabia's embassy in Washington, D.C.: “Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and [the] helpless.”

Today’s totalitarian ideology has no agreed-upon name, although its political qualities can be properly described as Islamofascism. The absence of a descriptor embraced by its adherents is no accident. It is a natural byproduct of their desire to portray themselves not as a leading vanguard, discreet cadre, or elite but rather as the representatives of all Muslims. By so doing, they seek simultaneously to dominate the Islamic faith and to benefit from the tolerance the United States and other Western democracies have traditionally shown toward minorities in the name of religious freedom.

Matters are made worse by Western governments’ continuing inability to differentiate between truly non-Islamist Muslims and the Islamofascists, their sympathizers, support cells, front organizations, and apologists. The past few weeks have seen a number of the latter issue highly publicized fatwas professing their opposition to acts of terror that many of them have supported, or at least condoned, for years.

Some of these organizations and individuals have even been publicly embraced in the aftermath of the London attacks by leaders like Britain’s Tony Blair and Canada’s Paul Martin. Past, well-intentioned but strategically insane efforts by law enforcement and intelligence organizations to reach out to indigenous Muslim communities through such usually Saudi-funded and pro-Islamist organizations are, as a result, now being redoubled.

The dangers associated with partnering with the enemies’ organizational Trojan horses can only be compounded if the American people perceive re-labeling the “war” a “struggle” as meaning that it is a condition, not a conflict — something we have to get used to living with, not something we have to defeat, lest it destroy us.

In fact, we have no choice but to fight the Islamofascists with every means at our disposal. This will require, among other things, engaging the American people far more fully in the war effort than they have been to date. In fact, it is time to put the country on a war footing.

Elements of such an approach should include the following:

Support the troops. An ideology like Islamofascism is surely something that must be fought with means other than armed forces. But, to the extent that this ideology is enabled by state sponsors, military instruments are likely to be critical to our victory. If we are to maintain the ability to wage conventional war with an all-volunteer force, the public is going to have to encourage young people to enlist and to stay in the military.

Help secure the homeland. The danger posed by attacks on soft targets such as the transportation sector clearly require that the authorities’ surveillance and intelligence capabilities be augmented by the eyes and ears of millions of Americans whose own survival may depend upon their vigilance and assistance. This should be viewed as a civic duty, not a threat to civil liberties.

In addition to increased public vigilance and involvement in monitoring domestic threats in the tradition of neighborhood watches, the nation needs to involve the American people much more fully in planning for and preparing against attacks on the homeland. Organizing and harnessing the potential of communities to assist authorities at all levels of government is a time-consuming and costly undertaking. But the spirit of volunteerism in response to presidential leadership can diminish both, and provide capabilities that may prove to be of great value in future emergencies.

Enhance energy security. The public can also be enlisted to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil, much of which is purchased from the same nations that are supporting Islamofascism and its allies. While there are various ways this can be accomplished, the most promising were not much advanced in the recently enacted energy bill. The least painful and most sensible would be to expand dramatically the availability and use of alcohol-based fuels and electricity as means of powering the transportation sector, where most of our oil is currently consumed. A blueprint for accomplishing this is detailed here <http://www.SetAmericaFree.org> .

Stop underwriting terror. Unbeknownst to most American investors, significant portions of their public pension, mutual fund, life insurance and private portfolios are comprised of stocks of privately held companies that partner with state-sponsors of terror. For example, a study issued <http://www.DivestTerror.org> last year by the Center for Security Policy () determined that about $188 billion is invested in such companies by the nation’s 100 leading public pension funds alone. Were that money to be divested or these companies otherwise obliged to choose between doing business with us or doing business with our enemies, it could have a profound effect on the ability of terror-sponsoring states to underwrite Islamofascist attacks against us.

This is but a partial list of measures the American people can — and must — be encouraged to help with as part of our struggle with Islamofascism. If we fail, however, to speak truthfully to the public about the threat both the Muslim world and the West face from our common foe, and to enlist citizens in waging this war fully and effectively, then our only hope may shortly be to ask that God save us.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is an NRO contributor and president of the Center for Security Policy <http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=today> in Washington.

An Iraq Strategy
New York Sun Staff Editorial
August 5, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/18130

As the American death toll rises in Iraq, the voices of panic are quailing here at home. United for Peace and Justice, the group that organized the anti-war march here during the Republican National Convention and whose steering committee includes a representative of the Communist Party USA, is planning three days of protest in Washington from September 24 to 26, including a day of "civil disobedience" that coincides with a meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Sixteen Democratic congressmen, including Major Owens and Jose Serrano of New York, have already signed a letter to President Bush asking him to begin pulling troops out of Iraq. "By removing our troops from the country, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents' rage," the letter said.

Yesterday, the dean of the New York congressional delegation, Rep. Charles Rangel, circulated an opinion piece in which he asserted that "the U.S. is stuck in a quagmire." Mr. Rangel called the Iraq conflict "a fraudulent war of choice, which members of the Bush administration had planned even before taking office." And David Brooks, a New YorkTimes columnist who is often a voice of reason, yesterday dumped the whole Bush doctrine overboard, writing,"democratizing the Middle East, while worthy in itself, may not stem terrorism. Terrorists are bred in London and Paris as much as anywhere else."

Well, it'd be nice to think that Messrs. Rangel, Brooks, and their ilk might take a deep breath and think about the consequences of what they're saying. An American retreat would only encourage the terrorists the way America's retreat from Somalia and Lebanon did. Chapter 2 of the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, "The Foundations of the New Terrorism," reports on Osama Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa in which he spoke of Somalia and Lebanon and of Americans who "left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you." Bin Laden said in a later television interview that "the United States rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace."

Those who believe an American retreat from Iraq would make us safer can contemplate the fact that the fruit of the American withdrawal from Lebanon and Somalia is visible today in the form of a pit at ground zero in Lower Manhattan. Not that American actions are responsible for September 11 ˜ the terrorists alone are to blame. But it is within our power to act in ways that discourage them or in ways that encourage them.

To the doubters that democratizing the Middle East will stem terrorism, we can only say that the strategy still has yet to be fully implemented. Indications from Britain ˜ that one bombing suspect trained for two or three months in Saudi Arabia and that another called the kingdom shortly before his arrest ˜ are that the violence there had ties to the unfree Saudi kingdom. Surely no one can deny the tens of millions of dollars that the Saudis pour into supporting extremist mosques in Europe and America.

To those who claim that the American troops in Iraq are the main focus of the insurgents' rage, one can only say that the terrorists attacked America on September 11, 2001, before we had any troops in Iraq. They will keep attacking us until we defeat them and the states that breed them or until we Westerners all surrender and convert to an extreme form of Islam.

It is a measure of our character as a nation that each American combat death is painful and significant. It's important to have some historical perspective, though. The number of Americans killed so far in Iraq ˜ 1,815 ˜ is dwarfed by the 54,246 Americans killed in the Korean War, where Mr. Rangel won his Purple Heart and Bronze Star. Or by the 405,399 American troops killed in World War II, according to the History News Network. If the American troops in Iraq have prevented a single additional terrorist attack on America of the magnitude of September 11, 2001, they will have reduced the loss of American lives, on a net basis.

As a matter of tactics, we have been advocating since even before the war for having as much of the fighting as possible in Iraq done by free Iraqis. This has been a central element of the strategy advanced by Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. We have also been saying for years now that in order to win in Iraq, America is also going to have to address the situation in Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iran. That doesn't mean invading them, but it does mean backing and emboldening the forces of freedom in those countries to liberate themselves.

If some doubters seem to have lost sight of what we are fighting for,Americans can be grateful at least that President Bush has a clarity of purpose. He articulated this yesterday in an inspiring way, speaking of "the clash of ideologies ˜ freedom versus tyranny. We have had these kinds of clashes before, and we have prevailed. We have prevailed because we're right; we have prevailed because we adhere to a hopeful philosophy; and we have prevailed because we would not falter."

Some comment here, that Japan was beaten anyway in 1945, and the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to impress/deter the Russians from attempting territorial gains.