From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 11:36:27 PDT
Hi Sonny,
>I agree with some of what you say but not all of it. Reality, you say
>reality? Reality is that this country was attacked on 11 Sep 01.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so don't confuse the issues. 9/11 was
primarily based from Afghanistan, and we blew several chances of getting
Bin Laden after because troops were sucked away for Iraq. Instead of
using our well trained, well motivated troops we had to rely upon Pakis
and local Afghans far, far too much. The country is still a total mess
and the Taliban and military thugs are a major force to be dealt with.
The fact is that the #2 country to go after, besides Afghanistan, is
Saudi Arabia. Nearly all of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and for
years the Saudis have refused to do anything about the cells and funding
sources within its country. They even framed a bunch of Britions instead
of admitting they had a domestic terrorism problem. Only now are they
sorta dealing with the problem. But Saudi Arabia is untouchable for
political and economic reasons.
>that when more than three thousand died within an hour or so?
This has nothing to do with Iraq or the bad planning for a war with it.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that we don't have enough troops
to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan under the current military structure.
> and you say
>"starting up a war" Come on Steve you can do better than that. Remember who
>refused to take bin laden when we had the chance?
As testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission clearly outlined, we didn't
have a chance before. Hindsight is great, but the American public,
Congress, and (most importantly) Pakistan would never have allowed an
invasion of Afghanistan at the time. To think otherwise is to ignore
what the reality was at the time. Also remember that the Bush Admin did
nothing about Bin Laden when it came into power even though we had just
been (again) attacked by him. Why? Same lack of will to do something.
Don't confuse your political feelings towards Clinton with the reality
which both Clinton and Bush Jr. operated under prior to 9/11. The
reality is nobody wanted to do what was necessary until after 9/11. And
it can be argued, in the case of Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palistine, that
the political will is still not totally committed to winning the war
against terrorism.
>Maybe you would rather fight the war against terriorism right here on the
>streets of your home of record, because if we don't fight it there we will
>definitely fight it here.
No, I would rather fight a war with the correct resources in the correct
way. A poorly planed war in Iraq, which has already killed 1/3 as many
Americans as died in 9/11 and cost us tax payers billions of dollars, is
*not* the way to win the war on terrorism. Neither is torturing and
humiliating prisoners as directed by Rumsfeld himself. Hearts and minds
need to be won, but we are doing the opposite. As the CIA testified
before Congress recently, we have actually increased the ranks of the
terrorist groups because of what we've done in Iraq. And we still don't
have the military resources to win it without something dramatic
happening (i.e. draft).
>War is just that, war. You ever read the contract or take the oath those
>military personnel did? I have.
No, but I am a military historian and a follower of current military and
political reality. I know a screw up when I see one. And just so you
know, I supported taking out Saddam. It's just that the Bush Admin went
about it in a way that was (and still is) nothing short of incompetent.
The Army was right about what was needed to win, the Bush Admin wrong.
Plain and simple.
>I just wish and pray every day that out Commander in Chief will do more of
>those stunts you refer to as "carrier landing PR stunts"
Why, so another 800+ soldiers can die during the second year "after major
military hostilities have ended"?
>Are you familiar with all the items that Kerry voted against yet he voted to
>increase the UN budget by a cool 800% ?
Without commenting on Kerry's "vote" (because I bet there is more to it
than you say), are you familiar that the Bush admin now is looking at the
UN to bail us out of the mess they created? NATO isn't going to do it,
and we don't have the resources, so there aren't many left to step up to
the plate.
Sorry, but the facts speak very loudly for themselves. The war on
terrorism is costing us a huge amount of money, political capital,
domestic freedoms, and (most importantly) the lives of our fellow
citizens in the Armed Forces. Yet in spite of that, we are not winning
(though certain politically connected companies are). Some argue we are
losing the war. I'd say it is still about a wash right now, but if
someone doesn't trash the existing "plan" (which isn't) and figure out
how to win this thing... we will lose a lot more of everything with no
end in sight for years to come.
And just so you know, I am a glass is half full kind of guy. It's just
that I can't be optimistic about something working when it is obviously
broken.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:33:49 PDT