U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP! That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision.

They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

Please forward this to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action.

IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP!!

TK,

That’s an interesting point of view, and the author is quite right about some things, i.e. we are under attack. But, at war? Really? With who?

But first, let’s back up. Yes, the U.S. Embassy in Iran should have been regarded as sovereign turf while diplomatic relations were in effect. Unfortunately, diplomatic relations were suspended before the U.S. was officially aware of it. That seems to be how it often happens. Nonetheless Captain Ouimette writes as though the attack by Iranian students on the U.S. Embassy was unprovoked. I believe that’s called “telling part of the story.” And leaving out a lot of important information. A more complete accounting would include the information that it was the U.S. government (via the CIA) that deposed Iran’s elected leader in the 1950s and installed the Shah, who was friendlier to U.S. and British oil companies. The Shah maintained his authority in Iran by killing and torturing all his opponents. (Hey, doesn’t this remind you of another tyrant who ruled Iraq until last year?) Oppression was working pretty well for him up until 1979. If Captain Ouimette had been in the Iranian military from about 1955 to 1979, he would have served the Shah, jailing, torturing, and killing opponents on his behalf. Oh, and those opponents wanted things like democracy, freedom, and spending Iranian oil revenues on behalf of all of Iran, rather than just the Shah’s family. I’m not defending the actions of the attackers, but trying to expand the field of information, which suggests that the U.S., through its prior behavior, may have set us up for such an eventuality. Oppressed people eventually try to determine their own destiny, even when the U.S. is the sponsor of that oppression (I could include references here about Cuba, Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc.).

The crux of the Captain’s speech is about terrorist acts being acts of war. This could be about misunderstanding definitions or other disagreement, I’m not sure. My understanding is that nations make war, and individuals commit crime. The reason the U.S. has treated most terrorist acts as crimes is because they were committed by individuals, even as members of organizations in some cases. But individuals, nonetheless, and not on behalf of any nation’s government. If any of the above acts had been on the behalf of any government, then it would have been an act of war, and we would be on the reasonable and ethical high ground by responding with a declaration of war on the sponsoring country. However, as far as I know, none of the acts cited in Ouimette’s speech were attributable to any nation. Therefore, they were terrorist acts that were classified and treated as “crimes.”

Isn’t this what makes the “war on terrorism” so convoluted? Just who is the enemy? With no nation claiming sponsorship of any of the terrorist acts, and with the intelligence information we have - if that’s of any value - the closest we have are some organizations sponsoring terrorist acts. How can we declare war on terrorism when the legitimate target, as best we understand it, is a bunch of loose-knit organizations and “cells” in various countries (nations that don’t sponsor them or really want them in their countries, since they apparently are located in the U.S., Canada, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, etc.) comprised of numerous individuals whose identities are mostly unknown to us. Geez, it does look like a situation that fits the traditional definition of criminal actions. So is the most appropriate response a crime-fighting response or a declaration of war? If the latter, then on whom would the declaration of war be made?

The speech is long on buzz words (“pay the price,” “make the sacrifice”), but short on definitive, rational, intelligent action. The Captain had such a good story going, but then he fell flat in his conclusion. What does he really mean? What is the action he refers to? What does this military action look like? No doubt we’ve got the best military and best killing machine in the world. We can use it to defend the U.S. We can use it to advocate or protect our interests, however we define them, such as the present action in Iraq. We can use it to take over a significant part of the world. But the good Captain fails to make clear how we can use our military to protect the U.S. from acts of terror, which seemed to be the point to which he was leading, unless I’ve made a critical misunderstanding. On the whole, the speech was rousing, but I’d still give him a “D” grade for failing to close the loop on reasoning and critical thinking.

Since you posted the speech, TK, and since you’re better read than I (recalling the several thousand books and articles you mentioned in another thread), tell me, what does the war on terror look like? What nation(s) do we declare war on? And why? (Since no nations have come forward as sponsors of terrorist acts against the U.S., and we still have no hard evidence - like that which would stand up in, say, a U.S. court - that any nation is sponsoring or supporting terrorist acts against us. And how do we win this war? Please provide the cause and effect link, like the Captain failed to do, that logically explains how our act of war will prevent a subsequent and future act of terror against the U.S.

One more thing. I've read a couple of times now that U.S. inflicted, non-combatant deaths in Iraq range between 9,000 and 10,000. That's at least 3 times the number of Americans killed on 9/11. In your opinion, how many innocent people in other countries should die while we avenge terrorism against the U.S.? I've indicated several times that I'm all for hunting down terrorists and killing them. That seems faultless and almost high-minded to me. But killing thousands of innocent non-combatants and passing it off as necessary collateral damage lowers us to nearly the same ethical level as the terrorists. Don't you think? And if not, why not?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

For starters

It's a speach they typically contain buzz words and do not cite sources nor detailed historical records. They would be too long and boring for most. One has to assume that one is either well read or will become such with thought provoking ideas.

What nation(s) do we declare war on?

Anyone that harbors terrorist and does not cooperate or make progress in riding their territory of such.


And why? If terrorist from within their borders commit acts against us or our allies.

we still have no hard evidence - Who says cite your sources. I have seen quite a bit re: Afghanistan, SA, Yemen, Iran, Syria,Indonesia, Sudan etc.

And how do we win this war? Simply kill more terrorist than we create or until they see that no nation or state will harbor their activites.


"One more thing. I've read a couple of times now that U.S. inflicted, non-combatant deaths in Iraq range between 9,000 and 10,000. That's at least 3 times the number of Americans killed on 9/11. In your opinion, how many innocent people in other countries should die while we avenge terrorism against the U.S.? I've indicated several times that I'm all for hunting down terrorists and killing them. That seems faultless and almost high-minded to me. But killing thousands of innocent non-combatants and passing it off as necessary collateral damage lowers us to nearly the same ethical level as the terrorists. Don't you think? And if not, why not?"

You mean like those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Define innocent? How do you know they are innocent? cite your sources of their innocence? Do the organizations you will cite have proof that they never aided and abetted terrorist or terror organizations or is it a big assumption. We have made no secrets about where we will be conducting operations and as hard as it may be to leave they have that opportunity.

Dick Cheney said it well in the days after 911. We are going to have to get our hands dirty and deal with some unsavory characters to win this battle. This is something America is struggling with and Al Queada is taking advantage of. They hide in the general pop so we will have to kill innocent people to get them. They learned to use world opinion and common convention against those they fight over the years against Isreal. One simply has to look at the bottom line to know what they are dealing with here and what the price of inaction will be. Whabbism is driving this action against us by a fundamental doctrine that we are infidels and sub human and worthless. So they have de humanized us to their populace. Now that they have done that they have taken the victims role and claimed that the infidels and animals have taken holy Muslim land , historical muslim land. This wrong must be righted at any cost bescause it is commanded by Allah. Only when the historical borders of the Ottoman empire are restored to Fundamental Islamic rule and Isreal ceases to exist will it end. By their stastement and goals. Anything is fair game in their book to achive this end. How would you fight that mentality when it is clear that Marshall plan doctrine and conventional methods will not work?

Salmo - excellent post. Great questions and thought provoking analysis.

TK - your post is full of hawk-like rhetoric.
"Anyone that harbors terrorist and does not cooperate or make progress in riding their territory of such.. That statement is filled with bravado, but says nothing. Every nation will say they'll cooperate if it's in their interest. I give you Saudi Arabia. And what do we do about the terrorists within our own borders; declare war on us?

"we still have no hard evidence - Who says cite your sources ... and "cite your sources of their innocence ..." While you're at it, have him prove there's no Easter Bunny, too. Great way to try and turn the tables. I know you're well read enough that you know exactly what Salmo is speaking of. Are you advocating guilt before innocence is proven? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the Constitution?

"Simply kill more terrorist than we create ... " Are you suggesting that our actions now are actually creating terrorists? Does that make us enemies of our own war?

GH,

All that I said is essentially what GW and DC said post 911. We could fight those that will harm us conventionally and lose or we can adapt and change a few things. The future never looks like the past. A hawk with its head on is preferable to a chicken with its head cutt off where I come from.

I'm tellin ya fellas we need a good game of dodge ball. Same old arguments by the same old folks every day going nowhere every day. Now give me a big red rubber ball and we'll see who is left standing at the end of the game. Or better yet a game of water polo. I know I would be bound by my honor to revive all of those of you I drown but I would like to see a few of you gasping for air for awhile first and watch as foamy water came gushing out of your overused pie holes. No politics, just good old fashioned survival of the fittest.

Man, I am with you there. I'm guessing you're paraphrasing something Bush had said in the past, but the actions this nation has taken doesn't seem to agree with that philosophy. Seems like we've taken a doctrinal WWII tactic, and it doesn't seem to be working. I think it will take small task forces of covert operations to flush out and destroy the splinter groups around the world.

Grandpa - since it's a "survival of the fittest"-type waterpolo fest, when I'm reviving you from a near-drowning you're not gonna try slipping me the tongue are you?

No I know I can stick my hand up under that dress you wear and grab your balls....That is after the submission hold that will immobilize you....just prior to submerging you for 2 minutes or so......I've given mouth to mouth to uglier guys than you....Seeing you in a dress might be a different story though.....I might mistake you for Rosie ODonnell and lose it.

My hair is longer than Rosie's.

I'll bet it is....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39101

Will the West survive?

Walter E. Williams

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 23, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The Muslim world is at war with Western Civilization. We have the military might to thwart them. The question is: Do we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation? Their intent is clear, but let's refresh our memories with a bit of history.

At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, several athletes were massacred. In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over and 52 hostages held for more than a year. In 1983, U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, killing 270 people. In 1993, there was the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and in 2001, it was reduced to rubble, killing more than 3,000 Americans. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, resulting in more than 200 dead and 4,000 injured.

Who are the people responsible for these and other wanton murders of innocents, including the recent barbaric beheading of two innocent men? They were all Muslims.

You say, "Williams, you can't make an indictment of a whole people and their religion!" I'm not, and let me clearly state: By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Muslim atrocities, and the collective Muslim response to those atrocities, might be better understood knowing their belief system as spelled out by a few, among many, passages from the Quran:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them" (Quran 8:12).

"The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures" (Quran 98:1-8).

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth [Islam], until they are subdued" (Surat At-Taubah 9:29).

Phil Lucas, editor of the Panama City, Fla., News Herald, in his April 4, 2004, editorial "Up Against Fanaticism," asks, "Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved?" Lucas says, "They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc., etc., etc."

My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell observes, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." He adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Sowell adds that few people, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves for their plight. For the Muslim world, it's the West who's to blame.

History never repeats itself exactly, but we might benefit from the knowledge of factors leading to the decline of past great civilizations. Rome was one of those advanced civilizations. Rome was so caught up in "bread and circuses" and moral decline that it couldn't manage to defend itself from invading barbaric hordes who ultimately plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The sooner we recognize the West is in a war for survival, the more likely we'll be able to escape the fate that befell the Roman Empire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Well now you've gone and done it. :rolleyes:
Ordinarily I tend to keep my political leanings to my self but more and more I feel that TK's cut and paste "Indoctrination" is a patronizing and offensive attempt to spread the conservative gospel.
I expect to hear (read) "ditto" at any time. Dude, aren't you capable of forming an original thought?
You must scour the internet day and night to find things to cut and paste. Then you tout the opinions of others as if they are your own.
If you want to convince others of the righteousness of your opinion, you have to have one.
Before you leap too far, you should know that I am one of the most conservative, Clinton hating, Hillary bashing, Kerry non believers you might ever come to meet in your remaining days.
I am neither rabidly religious nor atheistic. You might say I represent the mainstream.

Yes I did vote for GW but probably won't again. Not because I don't believe the war in Iraq was necessary, but because of the way the current administration is bollixing up the whole thing. It pisses me off that soldiers are still dieing every day and all the damn root weevils have to say is how hated we Americans are throughout the world. I hold GW responsible because he is in charge. If Rumsfeld needed firing and he couldn't do it, I see that as a leadership problem and his boss (that’s us by the way) needs to handle the problem.
In short, TK, I am ashamed to have my political views represented by you and others like you.
I'm Grumpy, and I wrote this message...
P.S. Hey Salmo, great analysis as usual.

Wow grumpyr that was deep. Did you say anything if so what?

"It pisses me off that soldiers are still dieing every day and all the damn root weevils have to say is how hated we Americans are throughout the world. "

What does this mean?


I hold GW responsible because he is in charge. If Rumsfeld needed firing and he couldn't do it, I see that as a leadership problem and his boss (that’s us by the way) needs to handle the problem."

Line it out. Blanket statements tell me you do not have a real well thought out platform for your opinions.

TK,

I think I know better than to bother to engage with you. I guess I was just looking for a brick wall to beat my head against. Of course it was a speech. Buzz words are fine - if the speaker backs it up with meaning. I didn’t expect source citations in his speech, but I would expect him to have them handy for any in his audience who desired a more thorough explanation. You presented his speech here as text, with a meaning not self-evident. I think that makes you responsible for the back-up information in this case.

The list of nations to make war on could be very long. At least we won’t have to wage war on the U.S. since we are taking steps, like the Patriot Act, to diminish individual rights in the pursuit of terrorists, regardless of how ineffective. So, if Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were known to harbor terrorists, and Iraq was suspected, but not known to harbor terrorists (we likely have differing opinions on the information about that), why didn’t we invade those other countries first? I’m accepting your premise for this exercise, but I expect some logic in our actions.

I agree with your sentiment that we could win this war by simply killing more terrorists than we create, but unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be so simple. From what I observe, it appears that so long as we kill innocent non-combatants, and support Israel at the direct expense of Palestine (sorry indeed to bring that up) we will invariably create more future terrorists than we are presently killing. This looks like we are on a path where we can’t get there from here. Actually, your response, “simply kill more . . .” was way too simplistic and extremely disappointing, coming from someone so interested, concerned, and as well read as yourself. I guess I engaged because I thought you would do better.

Your Nagasaki and Heroshima analogy is good. For better or worse, Roosevelt decided to kill a quarter million civilians or more (don’t think he knew what the death toll would be) to end WWII. People debate the wisdom of that choice to this day. My step-father was a Marine who survived three landings in the Pacific, and I don’t think a fourth landing directly on Japan would have been too good for him, so I don’t have an objective opinion. So from your response, I assume you’re OK with an unlimited number of innocent, non-combatant casualties in our war on terror. Is it because they are not white, not American? Personally, I think that’s sick. There are terrorists in Germany and the U.K. Should we attack them and accept unlimited collateral damage too? I hope your children are never in one of the countries we attack. Remember, we’re told this war will go on a long, long time and cover a broad part of the planet. As for proof of innocence, get real. See Harley’s post. So all those Iraqis we killed were harboring terrorists, eh? I didn’t think my lack of respect for you could drop another notch, but it has. And the civilian population really had/have a viable opportunity to leave before we conducted operations? Crimeny, that’s like saying we know New York is a likely terrorist target, and New Yorkers have an opportunity to leave before the next attack if they want to. I think you’re really grasping now, TK. There are about a billion Muslims worldwide. How much collateral damage are you going to accept in the effort to kill them all, which may be the only way to stop the recruitment of more Muslim terrorists?

Another cut-and-paste, I see. I’m with Grumpy. You’re really well read, but do you have an original thought?

Aunty M,

I understand the purpose of motivation. I’m more motivated by effective reasoning than by mindless cheering, “Now get out there and play some serious ball, boys!” I occasionally do some public speaking, and I listen critically to the same. Good speakers tie the message together, linking causes and effects, and linking that to specific actions that can be seen as effective responses. Captain Ouimette completely failed in that regard.

GP,

I understand your reluctance to jump in with other than your “dodge” ball, but I thought you’d be a likely one with something interesting to say. You usually exhibit reasoning skills I identify with even when I disagree with your conclusions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

"My understanding is that nations make war, and individuals commit crime. The reason the U.S. has treated most terrorist acts as crimes is because they were committed by individuals, even as members of organizations in some cases. But individuals, nonetheless, and not on behalf of any nation’s government. If any of the above acts had been on the behalf of any government, then it would have been an act of war, and we would be on the reasonable and ethical high ground by responding with a declaration of war on the sponsoring country. However, as far as I know, none of the acts cited in Ouimette’s speech were attributable to any nation. Therefore, they were terrorist acts that were classified and treated as “crimes.”"


I think this is the crux of the issue for most here. Prior to 911 the Clinton admin changed how we would address terrorism. Specifically after the first WTC bombings. They classified it as a crime and left it up to the FBI to investigate any acts. This essentially gave the terrorists a free punch at the US because like most crimes you cannot act on what someone might do. Post 911 this changed and we now can react premptively realizing that the terrorist in thier studies saw the gap in our laws and policies. They intentionally act not as a state but as a religion making them borderless. With the objective of making this a Judeo christian vs Islam battle. Traditionally we see this as religious persecution if we where go after a religion and Bush made that distinction very well in the early days post 911 and still does today. It is done with the hope that the so called "moderate" muslims of the world will isolate the "radical" muslims and join our side in condeming and ultimately ending thier sanctuary and actions. Either one disagrees with the classification of global terrorism as a crime or they see it as an act of war specifically in the case of Al Queda. Everything seems to stem from this one fundamental issue. It's intentional on the part of Al Queda they know the only way they can defeat us is to do it from with in. Creating global disconnect on Iraq was one of thier primary goals. It has worked in the early stages. Time will show that Iraq and some onther states going forward are of great danger to the peace of the world . Saddam would have given arms ,aid and support to Al Queda if he had not already . Others will as well. They made it our role to defeat them like it or not. I think that if each one of us where personally faced with an analogus situation in our personal live to this conflict we would reat much the same if our wives ,chlidrens,parents lives where at stake directly. We would not call the police and let them and the courts run thier course and wait for the outcome. We would take direct action to stop the threat.

"So from your response, I assume you’re OK with an unlimited number of innocent, non-combatant casualties in our war on terror"

Thats assinine and childish to accuse someone of that. It's also nieve to conclude that non-combatant casualties are not a reality specifically given the tactics strategy of the Al Queada and other islamic extreme groups . It will be very hard for us to divide the two groups and that is by design on their side. The innocent do have the ability to walk away.

TK, the cool thing about "opinions" as opposed to "assertions", is that no justification is necessary. Everyone has a right to voice their OWN opinion. When you make assertions, however, you are expected to validate them with research and structure so as not to distract from the core message you are attempting to convey. To do otherwise is best described as obfuscation which I tend to recognize and ignore as insignificant.
You, on the other hand, do neither. You merely search for a message that may, superficially resemble the point you are trying to make. Then you copy (including the entire legacy of possible errors) and paste. Often without attribution or analysis.
The post with which you started this topic is an example of your flawed method. By pasting, in its entirety, the text of an article you lifted from some (undoubtedly internet) source. You also included a prologue and epilogue that was not a part of Captain Ouellette’s original speech. Which, by the way, has been circulating around the www for over a year now. Your careless treatment of another's work tends to undermine the significance of the ORIGIONAL thinking that went into this speech. Also, by bringing these words to bear in order to illustrate a point that was not originally intended, (what was your point, anyway) you have removed them from their intended context and rendered them moot. I believe this to be a subtle form of plagiarism which I find to be completely distasteful. You wouldn't actually be Jayson Blair incognito would you? (Sorry for the obscure reference) I believe your brand of pseudo intellectualism is un-worthy of debate.
Is that clear enough for you?
I'm Grumpy and I wrote this message...

Grumpyr,
"TK, the cool thing about "opinions" as opposed to "assertions", is that no justification is necessary" as long as others have the same opinion as you you mean.
Its clear that you do not have a purpose other than to attack someone. You opt out of the debate with the opening disclaimer that you do not like to discuss politics then continue to line out your personal politics. It allows you to duck in and duck out as you see fit. Claiming all the while someone else is not fit for discussion with you. Just continue to piggy back off other with a hear! hear! and an atta boy every now and you will not need to demonsrtate and defend a postion. Talk about obfuscation.

"In any case, we need to wean ourselves from mideast oil so OPEC can't hold us as economical "hostages" anymore. It will surely help cut down on money flowing to the terrorists too."

I agree 100% but remember 25% to 35% of our consumption comes for the mid east. By 2015 that will be replaced by oil from sub-Saharan Africa. I support the $.50 to $1.00 a gallon Federal Tax for autos to curb use as long as the proceeeds go into funding private sector alternative energy sources.

Yeah.........that's kind of the way this BB works.

Good to see you ducking in again

I duck in when I feel like it.......I duck out when I feel like it.

It's been that way since I moved out of my parents' house.

If I feel the need for parental guidance when using this BB in the future, I'll drop you a line. Thanks for keeping an eye out........

Kind of sensitive today Dan?

Aunty M,

So true, so true. You're right.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I believe the War on Terror is the most important foreign policy initiative in the present and the forseeable future. My problem (thanks Grumpy for helping me see the truth) is that this Administration, after starting out well with Afghanistan has totally screwed up in Iraq. Here is an interesting link that crystallizes my thinking on the issue. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/
In order to win the War on Terror, we must get rid of GW and his group of clowns.

This is the good part,...(he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” )
Somehow the metaphor just doesn't fit.
The message is sound however.
While the invasion of Iraq was probably justified given the available intelligence. The prosecution of this war is a distraction from the accomplishment of the stated objective.
Our forces are overextended in their current capacity as "peace keepers, Democracy providers, civil engineers and police.
The Army is supposed to be an overwhelming bringer of death and destruction. Once again, the military is being misused so not to offend delicate political sensibilities.
Maybe we should withdraw and turn the entire stinking cesspool over to the Kurds to do with as they see fit.
The Iraqis will not be ready for a western style democracy as long as the Mullahs continue to rule the region with their particular brand of western hating monotheism. Furthermore, as long as the US is around to be a useful scapegoat on which to blame their shortcomings, there will always be Arab terrorists to kill. Sounds like a never-ending mission to me.
Instead of wasting our time trying to convince the Iraqis to set up the 51st state on their own, we should announce a plan to seal the borders with a 50 mile wide free fire zone, use the Kurds to root out the existing insurgents, pipe their oil to Texas and use the second largest oil reserve in the world (which we now own by right of conquest) to knock the Saudi's down a peg or two in the world market.
We are the only superpower in the world, it's time we got this job done and got back to what we do best, making stuff, and lots of it!!!
I’m Grumpy, and I wrote this message….

Its one view but a short sided view. Yes going into Iraq made it easier for Al Queda to claim that the US was embarking on a holy war agaist Islam as far as Islamic people are concerned. But they claimed that long ago based on our support of Isreal. Remember they where the ones that openly claimed a holy war against us infedels. It was a side effect that was welll discussed prior to the war. The risk was that Saddam would give weapons to these people. With more and more evidence coming out every day that this was about to happen or may even have happened already. Secondly you have to believe that their is a moderate Islamic majority for this theroy to have weight. I do not think there is a such a thing. I think there is an moderate islamic minority and that they have been westernized. This westernized minority is in full reatreat in the Islamic world and has been for some time. They have the money and got it form the west so they are seen as infifels that help the great Satan and have been targeted. So I would say that the authors conculsions have some weight but over extend conclusions. Take the battle to them make it happen sooner rather than later. Learn from what has happened in Isreal. You can live in fear for many years because you have to pussy foot around with these aholes just because a few people want to give them the first shot.

TK - I for one do believe that there is a reasonable Islamic majority. If there isn't, then I ask once again, what the he!! are we doing in Iraq??? We are about to turn over "sovereignty" to the new Iraqi Govt. Do these people represent a minority? I sincerely hope not or all of our expense in both money and lives will be for naught. I put sovereignty in quotes because after reading this story this morning, I wonder just what kind of sovereignty they will have.

http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/front/story/1454678p-8842155c.html

One of the interesting things about this is how the Ayatollah Khomeni used a similar agreement between the Shah and the US as a key component in his Islamic revolution in 1979.

Eddie,

"I ask once again, what the he!! are we doing in Iraq???" You have to try all options unless you are willing to just attempt to take over the Islamic world. The immunitiy issue is a tough one. We are going to have to try some things that we have not done before to get the upper hand on this monster they unleashed. It will take the typical years and years of deabate in the global arena to come to no conclusion. We cannot have our team swinging in the breeze in the mean time. One thing is clear that the great goodwill Al GORE and his cronies rail about never exisited. If anyone thinks that before 9911 or after that the certain countries where or would look out for our benefit they need to return to reality. They can show no evidence of such in the form of action.