Military expert: "we have lost this war" - but how is the enemy doing? [Updated]
Well, no, he's not really an expert, but because he's one of the most successful bloggers there is, he thinks he is. A recent posting by Andrew Sullivan drew a lot of attention from Ron Paul fans because he publicly endorses the candidate for President. I don't really care much about who he endorses, but his statements on the war are irresponsible:
Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration.We have lost the war? That's certainly news to our troops on the ground, where every indication is that the war is improving.
Now, granted, there will never be any clear-cut victory in Iraq or Afghanistan because these are not clear-cut wars. For the same reason, you won't have a clear-cut defeat either. Even in non-war zones like Algeria, Pakistan, and Turkey (to name a few) have all suffered major terrorist bombings this year, even though the United States is not occupying any of those countries. Are they winning or losing? Should they stop fighting?
So what would be a victory then? Maybe it would be something like weakening terror groups like Al-Qaida so badly that they cannot mount another major attack, and its few surviving elements remain in hiding and on the run. Which is, in fact, exactly what has happened. When Mr. Sullivan states "We have not stymied Islamist terror" I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.
And that leads to my next point. In any case, if you want to know who is "winning" it is only fair to also compare how well the enemy is doing on their objectives. There is more than one enemy involved here, so let's take a broad look:
1) End US support of Israel and force the US to shut down its military bases in Saudi Arabia (Al Qaida's reasons for attacking us on 9/11) - Failed [or partial success, see update below].
2) Hold on to Taliban power in Afghanistan - Failed.
3) Defend Saddam's regime - Failed.
4) Drive coalition forces out of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
5) Set up Shia/Sunni religious theocracies in Iraq - Failed.
6) Force the US to at least drawdown their forces in Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed. (we gave them a surge instead).
7) Make territorial gains - Failed.
8) Openly control any terrritory at all - Failed.
9) Win popular support of the population of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
9) Turn world opinion against the US - Partially Succeeded.
10) Terrorize people - Succeeded.
So overall, America's enemies are not doing very well. One might even be tempted to say they are losing...
Incidentally, I am not endorsing any candidate at this time, nor am I likely to. I believe it is not productive toward trying to remain objective on the issues. I think it's better to simply say what I like and/or dislike about them, and leave it at that.
UPDATE 2007/12/20 12:01:00 PM:
Andrew Sullivan wrote me to say: "didn't we pull the bases in saudi arabia?"
This is mostly true, so I should make a partial correction. We did pull (by official numbers) about 4500 troops from Saudia Arabia, most were Air Force personnel that relocated in Qatar. But about 500 US military personnel still remain in the Saudi Kingdom, most of them belong to the 64th Air Expeditionary Group in Eskan Village, which is about 20k SE of Riyadh (that official page is very sparse, more on their wiki page). So I suppose that by Al-Qaida's viewpoint, this is a partial success of one of their key objectives, even though the bases were closed more due to redundancy and disagreements with the Saudi government than anything else.
SECOND UPDATE 2007/12/20 05:57:00 PM:
Mr. Sullivan mentioned me on his blog, which I appreciate, but he misses my point. To my statement "When Mr. Sullivan states 'We have not stymied Islamist terror' I wonder if he would like to point out any attacks like the Cole bombing, Embassy bombings, or 9/11 that have occurred since the war on terror started.", he responds:
Madrid, London, Bali and all over Iraq.But except for Iraq, that's apples and oranges. Is the US responsible for the entire world? Isn't that the same arrogance that Mr. Sullivan and others criticize Bush for? And Bali is a particularly weak example anyway. The incident was in 2002, before the war in Iraq. Additionally, Osama Bin Laden claimed the motive was not just support for the US War on Terror, but also for Indonesia's support of Australia's operations in East Timor.
In any case, I was only speaking about US interests. I wasn't talking about places like Madrid, London, or Bali, which, btw, have a far greater percentage of Muslims in their populations than the US does. Not because I'm not concerned about these nations too (and I have written about them, plus I live in Europe), but simply because the US is not actively engaged in fighting terror in those countries, nor does it have the right to do so. Even if we were 100% successful in destroying Al-Qaida in the Middle East, we can't do anything about terrorists who are beyond our reach under the theory (sometimes true, sometimes not) that our allies are better at policing themselves instead of having US soldiers do it. I understand that we should be conscious of the effect that a war in the Middle East may have elsewhere, but Spain and the UK were full-fledged members of the coalition in Iraq, no one forced them to join.
But in the larger point, if you want to claim that the US's War on Terror should have the goal of making the entire world safer, then the entire world, or at least all the world's leaders, would have to get on board with it. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, and I can't see what would have happened if the US had pulled its support for Israel and/or and decided to seek compromise with Saddam or Al Qaida instead of war. But I would be willing to bet the result would have been very unpleasant. At the very least, some of the terrorist objectives above labelled "failure" would now read "success" instead.
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
37 comments:
A few points:
1. There are no clear-cut wars? I'm sure the Europeans would be surprised to hear that the end of WW2 wasn't a clear and decisive victory over the fascists in Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Germany.
2. Nice job of conflating the goals of Al Qaeda and those of Hussein in #3. It's BS. They hated his guts, too, remember? Ah, yes, but your list wouldn't look as good without the conflation of intent. What, you don't believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, do you?
3. Dude, if you don't know the religious differences between Al Qaeda and Iran, please don't conflate Sunni and Shia the way you do. That's plain ignorant. Why should I read the rest of your post if you're so damned ignorant about a really freaking important issue?
4. The last two are the major ones, where the US stepped into a fat pile of doodoo. The world no longer stands with us. We've fucked up big time. And, for all that the only terrorist attacks since then (anthrax...) haven't been solved, we're STILL terrorized by that ONE FREAKING DAY. For god's sake, the buy-in to Republican propaganda has been obscene. The way I see it, once we prosecute the US war criminals, meaning our president and his staff for their violation of American law on torture, and show that we are a nation of laws even when assailed by the lawless, we'll have a chance to win points 9 and 10 again.
So, with all your ignorance on the details, with all your desire to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda and Iran, this whole post doesn't hold water. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but until noise like this stops, then all we're doing is making noise. Perhaps a future post could, you know, clarify the distinctions you fail to make in this post.
Yeah, Al-Qaeda is such a bunch of scaredy-cats that Zawahiri is doing 'net pressers.
Shield of Achilles? How about "Heel of Achilles?"
"4) Drive coalition forces out of Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed.
6) Force the US to at least drawdown their forces in Iraq or Afghanistan - Failed. (we gave them a surge instead)."
I'm not so sure that either 4 or 6 is the enemy's strategic goal (though they may well be tactical goals). On the contrary, "Force the US to commit more troops, money, and resources to fight foreign wars" might be a more accurate portrayal of the strategy. In that, they've succeeded.
Shorter Achilles: There is no Caliphate, so Bush was right.
To "mok":
#1 To avoid the "noise" you speak about, I would advise you to read more carefully before you post. I said THESE are not clear-cut wars (ie Iraq, Afghanistan). I didn't say "there were no clear cut wars".
#2, #3 Having been in the midde of Shia-Sunni fighting, I know every well the difference between the various groups. Once again, read again: I said "there was more than one enemy involved here", so I listed them together when they had parallel goals (such as driving the US out of Iraq, something they all agree on), and noting when they didn't (such as Al-Qaida's desire to get the US out of Saudi Arabia).
#4 The world doesn't stand with the US? Last time I checked, there were far more countries at war with Al-Qaida than the USA. Very few countries have pulled out of the coalition in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and in the last year we have seen pro-US leaders elected in Germany and France. Moreover, we still take in more immigrants every year than any other nation by far. Yes, much of the world is pissed off at the USA, but let's not go overboard on this one.
What, you don't believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, do you?
Mok, you don't believe that Saddam & Sons -- absolute rulers of a technically-modern nation -- had the capability, the will, and the terrorist allies to emulate the Taliban, perhaps in a highly-amplified matter relative to the events of 11 September 2001 if it suited their purposes?
If you do, you have no room to talk about our President being "incompetent", as many of your fellow-travelers do.
He didn't have to be involved in 911 to be worthy of our attention ... he just had to be even somewhat likely to try and create another 911 in the future.
The way I see it, once we prosecute the US war criminals, meaning our president and his staff for their violation of American law on torture, and show that we are a nation of laws even when assailed by the lawless, we'll have a chance to win points 9 and 10 again.
You misunderstand the motives of our international critics, many of whom will strain at every gnat of perceived American wrongdoing ... not in the pursuit of justice and peace ... but in the pursuit of crass realpolitik, with the objective of ILLEGITIMATELY elevating (in relative terms) their world stature by trying to pull America back ...
... just as you and your ilk persistently strain at those same gnats, and have done so since Novemeber 2000, because you FEAR that this President will denigrate your anything-goes-except-for-the-honest-rich way of living, and actually return the socioeconomic and moral values that this nation was built upon to broad acceptance as LEGITIMATE values to live by.
How about a little perspective. These are a bunch of people sitting in caves with a lot of oil money and inciting guerillas. All of these goals you listed were either non-goals or unrealistic. If they succeed at any of them, it should be considered a colossal failure on part of the US.
Our military should be like a hammer to a house of matchsticks, a big metal block to a sand castle, the unstoppable force to a puny little piece of wood. We outspend them at least 1000 to 1.
The fact that they're still alive right now is an indication of the incompetence in this administration.
And you define losing as a cherry-picked selection of victories for the enemies. But both sides can loses the war. War is a fundamentally destructive activity.
Al Qaeda has lost. Taliban has lost. We have lost. Saddaam lost. The Iraqis have lost. What matters is not who loses, but who loses the most, and the US has lost more in this debacle than all of the others involved.
Well about Afghanistan: is that Putin I hear laughing in the background ?
I bet he is glad that it is the USA that is suffering and not Russia. 10 Years was long enough for Russia and let's hope that Russia does not begin giving aid to the Taliban
Of course Sullivan is right. In losing who we are we have lost the war. His latest post:
Welcome to the US
A young, blonde Icelandic woman writes about her recent trip to America:
During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.
She was hoping to have a fun Christmas trip to New York City. Her treatment reads like a passage from Eastern European police states in the 1970s. Apparently, she had overstayed a visa in 1995 for three weeks. Leg chains? I guess we're lucky she wasn't hooded. This is Cheney's America, after all.
And as far as the "coalition" well that is for all intensive purposes gone.
Germany and France ?? Neither one will be sending troops to Iraq. And Britain and Australia our 2 strongest partners in Iraq have new governments that will be pulling their troops out.
I posted this over at B5 as well:
I just want to say this. I want to say it gently but I want to say it firmly: There is a tendency for the world to say to America, “the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,” and then to worry when America wants to sort them out. - Tony Blair
Semper Fi.
The fact that they're still alive right now is an indication of the incompetence in this administration.
Actually, it is an indication of the compassion, vision, and wisdom of this Administration.
That is why they are steering neither the course of their predecessors regarding the terrorists of radical Islam, who left them in place long enough to perpetrate 911 ...
... nor the historical course of those who possessed overwhelming force in a conflict. If that were the case, in our day and age, this war would have ended in about 90 minutes ...
... and the death toll would make Iraq to date seem trivial.
Criticisms like this are an indication of gnat-straining ... even as the strainer remains willing to swallow the camels of totalitarian oppression and terrorizing death whole, in a single butter-covered gulp ... as long as doing so helps assure their non-accountability for the social follies and INACTION they have perpetrated over decades, that have brought harm to this nation.
aqualung:
Is it your proposition, then, that someone who violates our immigration laws, skips out of our country, and then re-enters it shouldn't be tossed in jail until we find out what his or her intentions are?
Personally, I'm glad to hear that a) the immigration laws are finally being enforced and b) that there doesn't seem to be any racism involved. Thanks for the good news.
aqualung:
Is it your proposition, then, that someone who violates our immigration laws, skips out of our country, and then re-enters it shouldn't be tossed in jail until we find out what his or her intentions are?
Personally, I'm glad to hear that a) the immigration laws are finally being enforced and b) that there doesn't seem to be any racism involved. Thanks for the good news.
I just want to say this. I want to say it gently but I want to say it firmly: Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to Osama bin Laden.
"I was only speaking about US interests. I wasn't talking about places like Madrid, London, or Bali..."
We heard so often from sources in America that an attack on the USA on 9/11 was an 'attack on us all' and that we all needed to get on board with the USA to stamp out terror.
Attacks on the USA's allies, however, are somehow nothing to do with the USA.
Classy.
"Mok" is why no one takes the left serious. He/she sees and hears only what they want to. The spin our dear friend "mok" used to describe your article was Keith Olberman-esqe. My favorite is when the lunatic fringe goes for the "war criminals" comments/arguments. White, liberal guilt is terrible disease that seems to affect a portion of our population these days. "Blame the USA first" is a very disturbing mindset. The Defeatocrats should change their symbol to an ostrich so they can be proud of sticking their heads in the sand when danger approaches. "Mok", grow up
I have never seen so many contradictions in one blog post before. If this is satire, it's brilliant. If not, it's pretty sad.
When do they hold the primaries in the state of denial?
To "jcrue": that's a brilliant quote; hope you don't mind if I use it sometime.
To "bill fish": you are mischaracterizing what I said; I was simply discussing the lack of attacks on US interests or on US soil. That doesn't mean I am not concerned about attacks elsewhere; why don't you read just two sentences ahead before issuing a condemnation?
To "jimmy": your opinion would be a lot more constructive if you were able to give specific examples of what you were talking about. Just some free advice...
New book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:
'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com/index2.html
For those who think I'm a leftie, think again. Sorry, guys.
For those who tell me to grow up, go ahead, guess my age.
And for those who support an authoritarian Republican party that can with impunity destroy evidence of illegal activity, please leave the party.
This post, and the comments to it, remain almost ridiculously silly. Rich Casebolt takes the cake. I mean, really, because you feared Saddam Hussein, you had to support the invasion? What a fuckload of horseshit that is. We prosecute those who commit crimes, not who intend to.
As to the rest, christ, I'm checking out. This is too silly. The original post was wrong, and the follow-ups mostly worse.
Forgot, one more thing:
Nice job, John Rohan, missing the statement I made. The anthrax attacks still haven't been cleared. The DC sniper was caught. Neither was involved in Islam. Come to think of it, while we're at it, the Oklahoma City bombings weren't Islamic in intent, either.
Huh. I guess Al Qaeda maybe only planned a one day attack and haven't bothered to follow up because of our fuckjob in Iraq. That's as likely as any other scenarios, but not what the Republican propaganda machine says - so OF COURSE people will disagree with me. Oh, well. Bye!
To "mok": I thank you for your comments. I didn't mention the anthrax scare, et al. because I don't see the relevance here.
You are wrong about the DC sniper though, the older one's name was John Allen Muhammed (changed from Williams) and he was a member of the nation of Islam. His jailhouse ramblings/drawings show that jihad was a motive in the killings.
John Rohan,
no no no NO NO! So his name was changed to an Islamic name, but you make the same mistake you made with Sunni/Shia conflation. Islam is not the enemy. There are political enemies, some using religion for their own evil. And there are idiots, like the sniper, who want to Be Someone Big. But, seriously, you just can't say "Islam" = "Al Qaeda" and expect people to take you seriously.
I really meant to stay away, and now I will.
We prosecute those who commit crimes, not who intend to.
As Stallone would say, this is mentally deficient ... in two ways.
When someone waves a gun at a cop, they are authorized to use deadly force, even before the "waver" pulls the trigger. But NOOO ... you would have us wait until the bullet tests the Kevlar in the cop's vest.
And, individuals commit crimes. Governments commit acts of war -- and are not subject to the same presumptions of innocence and other legal protections that individuals are.
Saddam, by assuming the role of absolute ruler, WAS the government of Iraq.
BTW if this was truly an "authoritarian" Administration, mok ... you and those like you would have "disappeared" by now.
The fact that you can still post expressions of your 10 September 2001 mindset disproves your thesis.
Whether or not you are a Leftist, you share their foolishness ... you have more fear of those who might shred paper -- or videotape -- than you you do of thugs who do shred people.
The flaw is the presumption of guilt.
We assumed the Icelandic woman was guilty and put her in leg chains. We assume terror suspects are terrorists and torture them. We assumed Saddaam had nuclear weapons and a connection to Iraq and we invaded.
It's America, we're innocent until proven guilty.
And Rich,
The whole point of the discussion is to prevent a truly totalitarian regime from taking over America. Do you propose that we stick our heads in the sand until it's too late to do anything about it?
Presumption of guilt is the first step among many to tyranny.
We prosecute those who commit crimes, not who intend to. Of course. Your rejoiner is irrelevant.
"When someone waves a gun at a cop, they are authorized to use deadly force, even before the "waver" pulls the trigger. But NOOO ... you would have us wait until the bullet tests the Kevlar in the cop's vest."
This falls under the right of the people to protect themselves. This right applies to every single citizen and not just to the police.
As for Saddaam, you're constantly inflating the threat. The threat wasn't big enough. The threat was not proven.
It'd be like a policeman that's paranoid about guns, and shoots and kills people that he thinks have concealed weapons.
As for Saddaam, you're constantly inflating the threat. The threat wasn't big enough. The threat was not proven.
Prior to 11 September 2001, there was far more evidence to justify taking down Saddam than there was to take down the Taliban.
If the relatively-primitive Taliban could support the few dozen guys who perpetrated the low-budget operation on that date ... why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with ABSOLUTE control of a technically-modern, resource-rich nation, that he will not leverage his nation to do something similar.
Again, the presumption of innocence applies to INDIVIDUAL NONCOMBATANTS in the face of government power.
READ MY LIPS: it does not apply between governments ...
... or to enemy combatants who do not conduct themselves in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. To treat them as POWs flies in the face of those very conventions.
Keep in mind, in times past such as these were summarily executed ... and free men everywhere lost no sleep over it.
It is our compassion ... for both their lives and the innocents they would otherwise target ... and not international law, for they are lawless men in the light of Geneva, that governs our treatment of them today.
Of course captured terrorists don't deserve a trial, or any of their Geneva rights. Neither did Tim McVeigh. Neither did Saddam. Neither did the captured Nazis - cripes, the Geneva conventions didn't even exist back then, but we still treated them with respect and gave them an honest trial. Even though they didn't deserve it, and had killed more people than any terrorist in Iraq.
Why didn't we just torture a confession out of them? Because we're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be elevating the morality of the world, not taking our cues from moral pygmies. Is refraining from torturing a captured enemy, and granting them a genuinely fair trial, really so much to ask of the greatest country in the world?
Of course captured terrorists don't deserve a trial, or any of their Geneva rights.
tel ... to grant them the protection of POW status eviscerates the very bargain Geneva ensrhines ... when combatants act to identify and conduct themselves so the innocent know to get out of the way, they are granted the rights defined in the Conventions when they are captured.
When the combatants do not act in accordance with the Conventions, they do not qualify for its protections.
Neither did Tim McVeigh.
McVeigh was an American citizen that was not captured on a foreign battlefield, but on American soil. While it could be argued that he was attempting to overthrow the government, he was not part of a foreign organization seeking to impose totalitarian rule upon our nation.
He also was not part of an active terrorist network of sufficient size and significance to require the isolation and coercive interrogations those at Gitmo are facing.
Neither did Saddam.
There was a different reason for Saddam to stand trial before execution ... to prove to the world, and especially to Iraqis who didn't always know what to believe about him, just what a meglomanicial butcher he ** was **.
Neither did the captured Nazis - cripes, the Geneva conventions didn't even exist back then, but we still treated them with respect and gave them an honest trial.
Actually, FDR used military tribunals to adjudicate the cases of captured Nazi spies, much like we have been doing at Gitmo ... and with the First and Third Geneva Conventions already in place.
The difference is, he followed up those trials with executions ... as they did at Nuremburg, as well.
Even though they didn't deserve it, and had killed more people than any terrorist in Iraq.
So, we wait for today's thugs to kill say, six million or so before we act?
How compassionate ... how enlightened ... how "progressive" is that?
Because we're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be elevating the morality of the world, not taking our cues from moral pygmies.
Read my lips ... we are NOT torturing people by the historical definition. Even waterboarding is close to, but not, the intentional infliction of acute pain upon a restrained captive that is the definition of "torture".
And if you want to stop taking cues from moral pygmies, you need to emulate our current President ...
... and stop kowtowing to the liars-in-formal-wear at the UN and in the "international community", who strain at every gnat of perceived American wrongdoing, as they engage in crass realpolitik to drag us down to their level ... a level where they make the right noises, but do NOTHING to DECISIVELY confront the totalitarians that are at the root of misery and death worldwide.
Your approach, at best, maintains a status quo ... a drip-drip-drip of death and misery that is the product of 20th-century conventional wisdom ... a wisdom proven invalid by the millions liberated, arms stockpiles and tensions reduced, and peace brought about by those who went against the conventional wisdom ... and were derided as "cowboys" by the Best and Brightest for doing so.
Those cowboys would be Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, BTW.
Is refraining from torturing a captured enemy, and granting them a genuinely fair trial, really so much to ask of the greatest country in the world?
(1) We are not torturing, see above.
(2) These combatants neither deserve a trial, nor is it in our national interest to provide the disclosures of information that are part and parcel of such proceedings. In fact, it puts our nation at greater risk to do so.
We can be humane ... and secure ... as long as we act with an open mind ... a mind colored by neither revengeful rage nor youthful idealism.
The whole point of the discussion is to prevent a truly totalitarian regime from taking over America. Do you propose that we stick our heads in the sand until it's too late to do anything about it?
We are a checked-and-balanced, rights-respecting republic. Those checks and balances have countered far more egregious "threats" to our civil liberties than those of your perceptions.
Here's a question for you ... would you welcome a government-run healthcare system?
If you do, than your inconsistency regarding civil liberties becomes obvious ... for that has the potential for far greater threats to your life and liberty than anything this President is doing.
If, OTOH, you believe the checks and balances exist to stop such threats regarding the highly-personal matter of healthcare, then why aren't the same or similar checks-and-balances just as effective for other, less personal areas of governance, such as national-security/law-enforcement?
Methinks, that, were I to peel away the layers of your onion, I would find at its core a person not so concerned about civil liberties ... but someone who fears more the judgmental looks of society, with no coercion involved, upon some of the aspects of your way of life ... a little kid, stamping their feet and screaming "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!" when no one is!
That is why you denigrate this President, by ANY means necessary, including the straw man of "threats to our civil liberties".
Like so many, you are trying to save the anything-goes Legacy of Woodstock Nation ... life, liberty, and world peace be damned.
The real peace song is not Kumbiyah ...
... it is Yippie-Ky-Ay-A.
We won't be fooled again.
Mok: We prosecute those who commit crimes, not who intend to.
Great idea. Lets take a quick poll:
A) After Mok and his family and his city are devastated by a WMD attack, we should haul the perps before the ICC to be prosecuted.
B) Or we could prevent it instead.
I'm leaning toward "A"...
We're supposed to be elevating the morality of the world, not taking our cues from moral pygmies. Is refraining from torturing a captured enemy, and granting them a genuinely fair trial, really so much to ask of the greatest country in the world?
As yes, the "moral" argument against torture. Forget for a moment that the "righteous" will demand exceptions to anti-torture laws when its their city at risk. Lets look at the "morality".
Instead of waterboarding a known terrorist to prevent Los Angeles from being nuked, we allow 10 million of it innocents to be incinerated. Then we destroy another 10 million innocents in Tehran with our retaliatory strike. How is that "moral" ?
Aqualung
The Icelandic woman detained was in 1995 and under the CLinton Adminstration
VP Cheney wasn't the Vice President yet, but Al Gore was.
You left one off your list:
Rip a page out of North Vietnams' playbook: Feed propaganda to the parasitic appeasement weasels of the West, so they will undermine the war effort from the US homeland - Successful
The Icelandic woman detained was in 1995 and under the Clinton Adminstration
...waits for Aqualung to bemoan the Left's descent into fascism...
[chirp chirp]
Post a Comment