War Must be Declared on those Against us

Pamela aka Atlas says BASTA! Enough hand holding, appeasing, talking "their"talk..........
THE BUSH DOCTRINE................either you're with us or against us

I say, first  Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran. The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us.

Syria Seen Stepping Up Aid to Iraq-Bound Insurgents - Rowan Scarborough
Syrians are increasing assistance to foreign fighters preparing to enter Iraq and kill civilians and U.S. troops, despite months of pressure on Damascus from Washington to crack down on the jihadists. A U.S. official said recent intelligence shows that Syria is the home to Web sites that exhort militants to come to the country for preparation to fight and die in Iraq. Syrians also are providing barracks-like housing as the recruits from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Morocco, and other Muslim countries prepare for jihad, or holy war. The fighters also receive weapons, training, and money in Syria.
    U.S. officials say it is impossible for hundreds of jihadists to move in and out of Syria on a weekly basis without the government's approval. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "It's up to Syria's neighbors, including Iraq, to interact with Syria in a way that helps them understand the damage they're doing to the region." (Washington Times)

Comments

[madmatt]

Yes, another war, because obviously the first pointless war is working so very well.

[Adam]

Number one, we don't have enough military personnel to draw from as it is and recruiting is in the toilet. How exactly do we fight in even more countries?

Second, if we were serious about taking the fight to the places where terrorists are, we would attack Saudia Arabia immediately. Iraq wasn't where these 'jihadists' were to begin with. Neither is Iran. Syria would make a bit more sense, but even then it wouldn't make much difference, because invading there wouldn't do away with Bin Laden nor attack where the money that funds them comes from.

How do you know this report is for real? The OSI is gone, but something else has almost certainly taken its place. If the Bush administration has their guns set on syria, then their first course of action is to set the political stage through news reports such as this...regarless of whether its true or not. I'm not saying this report is bogus for sure, but you must take it with a grain of salt.

[tubino]

Yes, another war, because Afghanistan is still chaotic, Iraq may still fall into civil war, places like Basra are becoming more friendly to Iran because of the rise of theocracy after elections, and because they may buy electricity from Iran.

Yes, another war, because even though the US can't control its border with Mexico, surely it can control the border between Iraq and Syria.

Yes, another war, because of all those extra soldiers we have loafing around.

Yes, another war, because having done all we can to tighten up US weak spots (NYC subway, chem and nuke plants, cargo containers coming in), we don't know WHAT to do with all those extra billions.

And of course another war against another country that -- so far -- has no known connection with the perpetrators of the latest attack.

Perfect.

[19K30]

Well Pamela. What have you done and what are you doing to serve your country? Newsflash, we don't need any more conservative bloggers telling us how much they support the troops with the yellow ribbons and bumper stickers on their cars. We need more soldiers, more sailors, more airmen and more marines. I suggest that Pamela shag her pretty little ass down to a recruiting station and join up. Otherwise I suggest that she shut up. Oh, and before any members of the 101st fighting keyboardists can chime in let me point out that I spent 13 years in the National Guard as an M60 and M1 tanker. I've done my time, the troops in Iraq are doing theirs, when are the conservatives who support this war going to start doing theirs?

[19K30]

Well Pamela. What have you done and what are you doing to serve your country? Newsflash, we don't need any more conservative bloggers telling us how much they support the troops with the yellow ribbons and bumper stickers on their cars. We need more soldiers, more sailors, more airmen and more marines. I suggest that Pamela shag her pretty little ass down to a recruiting station and join up. Otherwise I suggest that she shut up. Oh, and before any members of the 101st fighting keyboardists can chime in let me point out that I spent 13 years in the National Guard as an M60 and M1 tanker. I've done my time, the troops in Iraq are doing theirs, when are the conservatives who support this war going to start doing theirs?

How do you know this report is for real? The OSI is gone, but something else has almost certainly taken its place. If the Bush administration has their guns set on syria, then their first course of action is to set the political stage through news reports such as this...regarless of whether its true or not. I'm not saying this report is bogus for sure, but you must take it with a grain of salt.

[schroeder]

> The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us.

Of course they will. But first they'll have to climb over the piles of rose petals that grateful Iraqis threw at us.

[Mark]

Didn't the wise man once say, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven"?

[Pamela]

Which wise man? Nostradamus?
he said "Beware the Peacemaker" but hey one man's savant is another man's idiot.

Pamela

[tubino]

The crazy thing is that after all this "9-11 changed everything", we still have all these bigmouths who still don't understand that military invasions of sovereign nations not only are ineffective against the roots of terror, they are COUNTER-productive.

After 9-11 I thought, OBL's "movement" will dry up once the funding is frozen, the camps are destroyed, and the US makes efforts to improve conditions in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Then Bush withdrew US troops from Saudi Arabia, and I thought, well that's what OBL wants, but probably the right move.

And I thought, the only way OBL's movement gains ground is if Bush hands him a recruiting gift, and gives the theocrats an upper hand.

Bush has done more for OBL than I ever dreamed possible. It's just like Richard Clarke said, it's as if OBL is giving orders to Bush: give Al-Jazeera footage of US contractors abusing Iraqis. Give footage of US soldiers protecting Iraqi oil fields. Provide reports on "Palestinian hangings" (suspended by wrists with hands behind backs) of innocent Iraqis. Abu Gharaib, Gitmo, and why not throw in BILLIONS of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue "unaccounted for" by the CPA. US military pushed to breaking point, with morale low, armor still missing, and VA benefits underfunded.

It's more than I could have imagined. Maybe more than OBL could have hoped for.

Now you want to give him MORE?!?!

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[joedon1980@aol.com]

The president insists on proclaiming Iraq as "the central front" in the war on terror. Because of his incompetence thats exactly what it has become. Thousands of jihadist from all over the middle east but especially from "allies" like Saudi arabia and pakistan are pouring into Iraq where they get real hands on experience making bombs and planning attacks only to return to their homelands and launch attacks on westerners everywhere.

[joedon1980@aol.com]

The president insists on proclaiming Iraq as "the central front" in the war on terror. Because of his incompetence thats exactly what it has become. Thousands of jihadist from all over the middle east but especially from "allies" like Saudi arabia and pakistan are pouring into Iraq where they get real hands on experience making bombs and planning attacks only to return to their homelands and launch attacks on westerners everywhere.

[joedon1980@aol.com]

The president insists on proclaiming Iraq as "the central front" in the war on terror. Because of his incompetence thats exactly what it has become. Thousands of jihadist from all over the middle east but especially from "allies" like Saudi arabia and pakistan are pouring into Iraq where they get real hands on experience making bombs and planning attacks only to return to their homelands and launch attacks on westerners everywhere.

[Pamela]

In response to Schroeder's post "But first they'll have to climb over the piles of rose petals that grateful Iraqis threw at us.

I think Taranto said it best yesterday
"Zarqawi vs. Iraq
"The reputed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said the Iraqi army is as great an enemy as the Americans and announced the formation of a new terror command to fight Iraq's biggest Shiite militia, in an audiotape found Wednesday on the Internet," the Associated Press reports from Baghdad:

The comments, purportedly from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appeared aimed at discouraging armed Iraqi groups from entering talks with the Iraqi government. The tape challenged critics who maintain that fighting U.S. troops is legitimate, but who oppose attacks on Iraqi forces. . . .

"Some say that the resistance is divided into two groups--an honorable resistance that fights the nonbeliever-occupier and a dishonorable resistance that fights Iraqis," the speaker said. "We announce that the Iraqi army is an army of apostates and mercenaries that has allied itself with the Crusaders and came to destroy Islam and fight Muslims. We will fight it."

The speaker tacitly acknowledged pressure to abandon the struggle against the Americans and their Iraqi allies, saying he was "saddened and burdened" by people "advising me not to persist in fighting in Iraq."

He also said the Americans began speaking of negotiations to end the conflict after al-Qaida had "humiliated" U.S. forces on the battlefield.

But Iraq has nothing at all to do with the war on terror!"

[tubino]

Pamela exclaims in irony, "But Iraq has nothing at all to do with the war on terror!"

Of course it does NOW. The CIA and others have noted that jihadists are exporting the skills they are learning in Iraq to Afghanistan, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia.

Sure, Iraq is the new Afghanistan, just as some feared and predicted, and the parallel even extends to some Islamic fundamentalists enforcing Taliban-like rules in Basra and elsewhere. Which shows what, exactly? That the invasion was a catastrophe? That Bush handed OBL's followers the only means of survival he could have given them? That the US is now the USSR in Afghanistan, or Israel in Lebanon, two examples of occupation that gave birth to extremist movements?

Answer: all of the above.

[Michael]

I think you are crazy and need mental evalution in a medical institution (as are half of this country). Your rhetoric is devoid of logic and reason.
Educated Atheist.

[D. Wright]

You HAVE to be joking? Invade Syria? Invade Iran? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. The f****** bombers were in London. You need to use police and intelligence to smoke them out in London, and in the other cities they're hiding in. Invading other countries won't help at all. I'm going to assume you're just blowing off steam here, because if you're not, ... well, I'll leave out the ad hominem stuff.

[JFrankParnell]

1) Cheers for actually blogging with comments. "Conservative" bloggers usually don't have the minerals.
2) Jeers for not actually learning from those with enough sense to point out the galactic stupidity of your ideas and the saintly patience to nevertheless attempt to guide you to the light.
3) Bush doctrine? Syria doesn't have any oil. Why would Bush go there?
4) As adequately demonstrated by previous comments, invading another country is no more than pernicious nonsense.

JFP

[lonbud]

Pamela: You sure are pretty, but you don't think too well, now, do ya?

[Paul]

The young people Of Iran (75% of the population) will rise and fight with us.

After the infamous flower petal claims regarding what we could expect in Baghdad, I am speechless that someone would be so uninsightful as to make a claim like this. Don't you read the news?

[Damiani]

Hehehehhahhha....

That's really extremely funny!

Pity you're serious.
---

OK, that was cheap, and disrespectful-- but honestly- invade Syria and Iran? Even IF we had the army to do it-- we don't-- and IF our allies on Iraq would go along with it-- they wouldn't-- even IF it wouldn't leave us with ZERO options for the genuine threat of North Korea-- even IF either Syria or Iran had anything to do with these attacks-- and I've seen no evidence to that effect-- it wouldn't-- even IF we had reaasonable cause to believe we'd be welcomed by Iranians...

Well, even IF all those things were true, you'd still be costing orders of magnitude more lives than died in the terror attacks today.

Terror is not the real threat, it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The real danger isn't 38 people dying in a subway bombing, it's someone getting ahold of a nuke, or synthesizing smallpox. Overreaction to these things takes our focus of the genuine danger of Macroterrorism and plays into the objectives of the terrorists.

[no-nonsense]

Believe it or not, the French actually found a way to determine the guilt or inocense of all jihadist-pro-islamists. If their heads land up-right in the basket, they are obviously inocent.

[Roar]

"I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia)"

As ridiculous a statement as it is, do some research before you grandstand about what our allies should and should not do. Or even what they CAN do.

The Japanese are forbidden by their American-written constitution to send troops into a 'combat zone'. So, it would have to take a ridiculous declaration about missions being 'accomplished' (before they even begin) before one Japanese soldier can step foot on Syrian or Iranian soil.

[schroeder]

Pamela, you're mocking the idea that "Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror" is willful ignorance. Both yesterday and on 9/11, we were attacked by Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. Not Saddam. Al Qaeda.

Before Bush invaded Iraq, Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies. Not mortal enemies like AQ and the US. But enemies nonetheless. Osama bin Laden had called for Saddam's overthrow and death, because he was a secular muslim, and not a radical. Zarqawi, who was a terrorist, but wasn't affiliated with AQ, was operating in Iraq, but hardly with Saddam's blessing - Saddam had been trying to drive him out of Iraq for some time.

So, we have three distinct groups here, and I'm going to throw in a fourth:
A) Saddam's Baathist-led Iraq.
B) Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
C) Zarqawi's terrorist group.
D) The long-suffering Iraqi people.

Before Bush invaded Iraq, none of the above four got along, and the only one who presented a clear threat to us was B), the ones who had already attacked us. But instead of simply going after the people who attacked us, Bush attacked A) in retaliation for B)'s actions, which has united A, B, C, and a good portion of D against us. Zarqawi has joined up with AQ only since the invasion. Iraqis have been killing Americans only since the invasion.

9/11 presented us with a dangerous new enemy. Instead of simply doing everything in our power to neutralize that enemy, Bush has created several new ones, and as we saw yesterday, the old enemies are as big a threat as ever.

If we had done the logical, sensible, militarily sound thing, and simply gone after Al Qaeda - destroyed their camps, halted their funding, and attacked their ideology of suicide bombing and hatred by showing them that our way (that's freedom and democracy, not torture and unprovoked invasions) is better - and dealt with Saddam at some later date when we weren't already in the middle of a war with Al Qaeda, who knows whether yesterday's attacks, or the Madrid train bombings would have happened.

There's a lot of ridiculous assertions in the conservative blogosphere about how criticizing Bush emboldens the terrorists. But what I think really emboldened the terrorists was that they attacked us, and Bush didn't fight back! Oh, he fought somebody, just not the people who attacked us!

If you robbed the bank, everyone in town knew you robbed the bank, and the cops decided to just scapegoat the town drunk who nobody liked anyway, would you learn your lesson and give the money back? Or would you think, "shit, I got away with it this time. I wonder if there are any other banks I can rob?"

Terrorists are going to keep attacking us until they know that we will make them pay. And by them I mean the terrorists. Not their oil-rich neighbors; not "the guy who tried to kill my dad." The god damn terrorists. If that's "hand holding and appeasing," then I guess I'm just an America-hating liberal.