Letters to the Editor
Fraud Guy
Published Letters: 337
-
Cut and paste required
[Read the article: Ending the war vs. supporting the troops]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me explain in simple words even mentally-challenged liberals should be able to comprehend.
You're mentally challenged. Got it.
We were peacefully minding our own business when we were viciously attacked by Islamofascist jihadists on 9/11.
Exporting our military might across the globe in over 100 countries.
After very thoughtful deliberations, the Bush Administration realized that it was not enough to just retaliate against those directly responsible.
The Bush administration desire to overthrow Saddam, which was an unpublicized, internal goal, since taking office, and realized they could conflate that goal with the horrible attacks that just occured, all within hours. All this did not occur to GWB, who was busy understanding the complexities of his little pet goat when we were attacked.
We had to drain the Middle Eastern swamp which is the breeding ground of these vipers and destroy their supporting infrastructure.
Which is why we invadeded the mountain and desert countries and destroyed the infrastructure of the peaceful citizens of those countries, destroying the daily lives and making them hate us. Check.
We have poured blood and treasure on this project and through the incredible bravery and skill of our fighting men and women are now achieving major successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq (see for instance my post yesterday about Al-Douri and the Baath party remnants now falling into line).
Wasted, yes. Lack of political progress yes. Did not use post-invasion strategies prepared by State Department and are still playing catch up years later, yes.
Yet insane left-wing partisans are now attempting to flush our hard won gains down the toilet.
Yes, you already said you were insane. Check.
The results would be utterly predictable and disastrous.
No, not predictable, that's why reasoned speculation is all over the map, and your predictions are well off it, left behind in the glove compartment of a car that was crushed in the junkyard for scrap years ago.
The Middle East would become a seething cauldron of the most violent Islamofascist radicals, who will make Osama bin Laden look like Gandhi. We will be hit with hundreds of attacks which will make 9/11 look like a picnic. We will then have to send our brave troops back into that seething cauldron under much more unfavorable circumstances, with casualties running into 100K or more. That is why cutting and running is diametrically opposed to supporting our troops. Got it?
We invaded a sovereign country on the flimsiest pretenses, occupied it ineffectively for years, causing the displacment of over 10% of its population and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, removed the strongest secular government in the region, allowing the flourishing of radical religious power bases, all while wasting billions of dollars and our goodwill across the world, and it might then be possible to imagine how we pissed these people off.
Got it.
By the way, it's not cut and run. It's devise a sane way to leave the country. Talk to the neighbors, get them to agree how to salvage Iraq and save its people and give them all some reason not to want to come over and make you soil your pants. Then we could rebuild our volunteer army, properly equip them, and dismantle the mercernary forces we've used to supplant them, so that our armed forces could protect our country instead of being sucked dry in a useless war. Maybe we could be more Gandhi and less Charlemagne, and then we'd have to worry less about the next Osama.
Stop the enabling. Start the repair.
-
Minor correction
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul,
The 80% in the middle may break the rules, but are more or less likely to based on various personal influences (greed, fear, advancement, etc.) and their fear/concern about discovery/punishment. One of the running jokes I used to have with some investigators was guessing the price point where somone would break the rules for financial gain (usually based on cost of living it up for life in non-extraditing countries; but this was pre-Enron, AA, Ardelphia, where the numbers broke most personal price barriers). But, true, if it becomes accepted to break certain rules (don't get me started on various forms of cheating, including tax laws and traffic laws) then we're counting on the 10% to pull us back to integrity, when what is more likely is that we are creating a new baseline for a new "good" 10%.
Of course, there was another country where following orders from authority was used as an excuse....but I don't want to invoke the Law.
-
Unbelievable
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sajwan,
Are you telling me that government employees may end up being hired by companies that they helped get preferential regulation, enforcement, or contracts? Or that persons closely tied to industries would be asked to regulate their previous peers and not act in an objective manner pending their return to the same industry?
Damn, forgot to turn off my snark-monger again.
-
Fear factor meets risk analysis
[Read the article: The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe you've forgotten that this "small group of people" killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and have sworn to destroy Western civilization and install a worldwide caliphate.
So in about 15 years of active ops against the United States, these people have killed approximately 3000 Americans (I am not including Iraq, as that was a self-inflicted wound).
At that rate, they will have killed us and taken over when the fear-generated deficit used to nominally stop them is paid off, but hopefull after the rights which have been taken away to prevent them from taking our rights away from us have been restored.
You are aware we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?