WASHINGTON — A Muslim group said Monday it had invited Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., to expand on biting remarks he made last week during debate on a House resolution disapproving of President Bush's decision to send more than 21,000 U.S. troops into Iraq.The Muslim American Public Affairs Council has "extended this invitation to Congressman Goode to give him a venue to explain his recent comments about Muslims and Islam," MAPAC Executive Director Marc Conaghan said in a statement. MAPAC also asked Goode to share a dialogue with Jamal Badawi, an Islamic and comparative religion scholar….
Last week, Goode said the nonbinding resolution would provide "comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country." He also said Islamic jihadists want U.S. currency to say "In Muhammad We Trust," with an Islamic flag flying over the White House and U.S. Capitol. -- from this article
Congressman Virgil Goode should start to figure out that in his entirely justified suspicion of Islam he does not go far enough, and does not make sense of all of the information available.
If he were to do so, he would not be supporting the "surge" in Iraq with its perfectly predictable outcome. He would be furiously opposing -- for all the right reasons -- the squandering of men, money, and materiel in Iraq to obtain a goal that is the exact opposite of the goal that should be sought: not "freedom" for "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East," and certainly not a "war on terrorism" that "we are fighting over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
Note that among those 17 Republicans who voted correctly, that is, against the surge, there were a number from the districts that include large military installations. These included Congressman Coble, whose district includes Fayetteville, North Carolina -- that is, Fort Bragg. That should have been made much of, but who would have made much of it? The Bush Administration wouldn't have. Those Democrats who opposed the resolution against that "surge" would not have done so either, for their reasons are completely different from those of many of the 17 dissenting but correct Republicans.
Those 17 Republican Congressmen included those most attuned to how the soldiers and Marines think, and feel. And even if not all of them know a thing about Islam, they know as a practical matter that the continued effort in Iraq, and the goals of Bush, Cheney, and Rice, of McCain and Lieberman and the two Kagans and those smug young lochinvars of the lecture circuit, including the comical William Kristol (issuing pronunciamentos about "victory" in Iraq at My Weekly Standard), are impossible of achievement. They know this because they talk to those officers and men who return, and then go back, and then return, all because the Administration is too obstinate and too confused to figure things out.
There is still time for them to figure out, and to spread among the other Republicans, the understanding not only that the "victory" Bush seeks in Iraq is impossible to achieve, but that the only "victory" that makes sense is a different one, and it was achieved well within the first year of the American invasion: the removal of Saddam Hussein and the toppling of all the pillars (his sons, his face-cards, his Sunni-run army) of that regime. That toppling made inevitable -- not possible, not probable, but inevitable -- the transfer of power from a Sunni despotism to the Shi'a of Iraq. And this, in turn, made possible, though not quite as inevitable, spillover effects in other Muslim countries, wherever Sunnis and Shi'a would identify with their co-religionists fighting or being fought in Iraq, and would lead to sectarian divisions widening all over Dar al-Islam. And if the Kurds are supported in making their move, then the spectacle of non-Arab Muslims throwing off the Arab yoke could inspire other non-Arabs, beginning but not ending with the Berbers in North Africa.
This too would contribute to the only goal that ever made sense, and certainly the only goal that justifies the crazed expenditure of $750 billion. That is now the average estimate for what the war in Iraq will have cost the American taxpayers even if the Americans announce their total withdrawal within the next few months, as of course they should, and should have done so, at the latest, by February 2004.
If you posted this at Free Republic, Jim Robinson would ban you.
True conservatives have more to worry about than the Liberals and their love affair with Islam...we have plenty of our own who are currently engaging in that.
Hugh, I agree with your assessment completely.
My objectives may not be palatable to some, but
my sense of outrage against Muslims is profound.
I believe that our future president, whether by
stupidity or deceit, should step back and let
the chips fall were they may. I believe that we
will be forced to intervene from time to time,
in the Muslim world but it should only be
punitive and with devastating force, and then we
should withdraw to let them implement the
adjustments that we demand, in order to let them
share the planet with us. We would need to do
this for as long as it is required for our
survival. I understand that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al qaeda, etc., are only expressing the sentiment of the mainstream Muslim and the goals set by the prophet. The real radicals in Islam are the few brave ones that are under death sentences form their clergy and coreligionist. Do you care to comment?
...The people are angry to see a man speaking the truth....and the Muslims hate the truth....
He appears to tip into understanding, but needs a push. Some more education.
From my observance, there are two misunderstandings at work which prevents correct action by most in the West. It's summed up in the reactions to the now infamous sentence:
"Islam is the religion of peace."
reaction one: What is this a con? Look at all those millions of dead people and the fascist regimes in muslim controlled countries!
reaction two: Of course it is. All religions are peaceful. Islam must have been hijacked by extremists! Or, displaying astonishing ignorance, as George Bush reasons: "Religious people don't do things like that."
If they would simply replace the word Islam with its English translation, more would actually understand what Muslims are actually saying:
"Submission is the religion of peace."
ie: Peace is all about submitting. To Allah, of course. When all submit, there is peace.
By making this simple translation, we can also make sense of the otherwise ludicrous term:
Islamophobe
it means
Submitophobe
ie. One who is afraid to submit.
It's not a word game, it's a philosophy. Goode and everyone else in positions of influence need to learn these simple lessons to inform their understanding of what the "mom and dads of the Middle East" really believe as they are being "liberated" with billions of dollars and American blood. And what the Soft Jihad on the home front is really saying.
I'm very glad about Virgil Goode and hope he ignores the Muslims' invitation."
Not worth your time, Virgil. Ignore them.
I don’t know if this is a local run or a national one. The TV commercials call for us to petition Congress to ‘stop cuts in medical care’ and show a premature white baby with tubes coming out of his nose.
I write from a State with a large Somali population. We are supposedly one of fourteen states that has burnt through all of our Federal health care dollars in the first five months of the year. People are wondering who to bill for the free health care that our new and growing immigrant population feel entitled to. Our Senators are sponsoring a bill to get another $300 million in Federal dollars for health care. I suspect that the advertisements and legislation are connected. Currently 60% of the Federal budget is spent on social programs, up from 10% in 1947.
The Laws of Economics and a collapse of the social safety net will end multiculturalism. Virgil Goode may be on to something.
For all you folks that think I'm a conspiracy theorist...that I'm too hard on 'corporate america'....check this out.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207dobbscalls.htm
Can we REALLY believe that our politicians are clueless to this? Or MAYBE this is exactly why neither party is prepared to deal with the borders?
"Goode's position on the invitation wasn't clear Monday evening. Phone calls to Goode's office went unanswered."
Good for Goode. It sounds like more of a couched threat than an invitation. Sorry kids, but Americans are not under any obligation to answer to roving special interest groups who want what they want. Who cares what they want? Freedom of speech goes both ways...we have the freedom to say what we want and we also have the freedom to not explain if we don't want to. I think Congressman Goode needs to be explaining to the American people just what the threat is. The Muslims who are doing the threatening deserve no explanation at all.
Goode in my estimation made all the right moves. to vote with the Democrats is to show you are on the side of deafeat, and will create a prisdiency with less powers, and more power going to the black robes in the coursts (not elected).
fools only believe in conspriacies, any thinking this prison planet fool alex jones makes sense, needs to get out of the twilight zone.
"to vote with the Democrats is to show you are on the side of deafeat [sic]..."
-- from a posting above
Nonsense.
Is it beyond your imagination to conceive of Congressmen not only voting, but explaining why they vote as they do? Didn't Congressman Coble do exactly that? Shouldn't those who fully grasp the menace of Islam start making speeches about why the war in Iraq has, for three years, once Saddam Hussein's regime was dismembered, a place where the inevitable fissures would work to our advantage? Or, if no one wishes to be quite so open about this (apparently we are not allowed to wish the Camp of Islam ill, are we?), then to phrase it differently:
"We've done all we can."
or
"It's now up to the Iraqis."
or
"We shouldn't be caught in the middle of a Civil War.'
or
"Our presence harms more than it helps."
or
"We have many other commitments at this point. It is now up to the Iraqis to make the necessary compromises, and we have come to the conclusion that our presence there prevents them from sufficiently feeling the pressure necessary, apparently, for them to do so."
Say whatever you goddam want to say, but get the Americans out. And let the army and Marines recover, for god's sake. And the Reserves and the Guard.
Hugh & Robert:
A few weeks ago RS was interviewed on Bennett's morning in America radio program, & responded to a question on whether the US should quickly withdraw from Iraq, leaving the various factions to fight it out, by saying (if memory serves) that the US should not suddenly withdraw. RS did not say that we should stay the course, whatever that is, nor did he explicitly support the "surge." But that left me wondering whether Hugh's and Robert's positions on whether the US should withdraw from Iraq as soon as practicable are similar. Not that HF & RS have to be of one mind about every major issue. I myself am inclined more toward Hugh's position. Whatever moral obligation we had to patch things up after toppling Saddam has been amply discharged in the -- what -- almost 4 years since his ouster.
I agree with Hugh's view, but to my amazement they think securing the Iraqi border is possible & using Bathiist Generals will be helpful.
Mr Fitzgerald,
Respectfully your assessment is incorrect due to your not understanding military and political doctrine in the past in Iraq.
President Bush embarked upon a "love thy Muslim" strategy which sought to change them by diplomacy. The Shia did in fact remain behind their baracades until Iranian al Qaeda blew up their Mosque and in a continuous bomb for bomb strategy started what is occurring in the 30 mile Baghdad zone.
Falujah was another example of "love thy Muslim" strategy which was costly to US forces in the administration was trying to convince Muslims to behave.
The US military since the first week of battle in Iraq has not been allowed to be a military. Rumsfeld was under political orders to subdue and convert. This was an appropriate trial as it was humane, but it allowed outside forces to invade (this was part of a securing America agenda too in bleeding off radicals to be killed in Iraq instead of disrupting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan).
But to deem what has happened as an inability by the United States to secure and covert Iraq is incorrect. Italy, Germany and Japan were far greater obstacles after WW II and as violent, but they are democratic nations due to the US military being allowed to handle the situation.
My brother was just speaking to a light Colonel who was shot in Iraq and is now healing in the US. His view from Iraq was it was not that bad over there. The media is blowing it out of proportion and his biggest disgust was with the American people in voting Pelosi and coming up with findings such as yours which are incorrect.
This fine soldier has so had it not with terrorists, but with American stupidity that he is contemplating moving to Ireland.
This is all said with respect, but one can not equate what happened in Iraq with what the US is capable of. There were many agendas being worked out and they have been a great success. If the American military were allowed to do it's job, then one would have........exactly what is happening with the Kurds, most of southern Iraq and the areas of the Sunni shieks which are even more peaceful than downtown LA.
It is the 30 mile zone which is a problem for political reasons. Allow the military to do what it does so well and that zone will be at rest too.
I will repeat, Tony Blankley revealed al Qaeda is on the move to southern Lebanon with Syrian and Iranian help. They would not be moving if the US surge was not working.
Iraq can be "peaceful" as any murderous state like California if the military is simply allowed to operate without whining Kennedy and Rosie crying about dead terrorists.
President Bush achieved exactly what he intended in syphoning terrorists and keeping them there and not in America. Victory though can be brought to fruition perhaps once and emboldened Iran is lured to cross the line. The War College is not just playing Iraq in this, but Iran and there is reason the military was showing smart bombs to the world. That world was China and Russia.
Victory is exactly there if one understands the entire battlefield scenario.
Thank you for your time.
I sincerely hope that Virgil Goode declines the invitation. He can site that he is under no obligation to "explain" or be harangued, particularly by a group of people who have the downfall of the constitutional arrangement of the USA written into the koran and sharia.
This will put the Muslim American Public Affairs Council on the defensive, as it will be they who have to "explain" and disavow any such desires.
Attack is always the best form of defence.
I am not ready to accept Fitzgerald's half right opinion on Goode's opinions just yet.
The military has a strategy
"CLEAR", "HOLD" and BUILD
With General Abaziad the strategy was:
"CLEAR" "FOLD" and WATCH
Let us at least try "CLEAR" "HOLD" and "BUILD" and give serendipidy a chance.
Though there may be some benefits with leaving Iraq post haste, I feel one of the worst consequences would be the pressure by the world community as well as domestic groups on the US to accept Iraqi refugees.
I was at first happy with Governor Strickland's speech where he said that Ohio is against any settling of Iraqi refugees in Ohio. But he has recently backtracked on this under pressure and now says that Ohio would now be happy to accept refugees.
I have no problem with accepting Iraqi refugees, except that it would be nigh impossible to discover where their loyalty would lay. When six in ten of Iraqis support attacks on our troops, it would be very dangerous not to vet people, or even be able to tell who is honest. And also with 60% saying that attacks are ok, it would be impossible to allow whole families to resettle, since odds are at least one person would have such violent notions.
We should only allow in individual Iraqis that have proven to be loyal to the US, and preferably Iraqi Christians or ex-Muslims.
Paulc37: I do feel that the US has not actually tried the clear, hold, and build strategy. It is a good strategy that needs more boots on the ground and the proper environment.
But I think this strategy is not applicable for Iraq. Just ask yourself, "what should the US build?"
Just power plants/ schools/ roads? They would only blow it up again. A liberal democracy? They do not have the culture for it, nor can such a culture be conjured from the air and then imposed. A unified Iraq? They hate each other and are too clannish.
Vietnam has shown that the US military cannot fight on behalf of a people for something (for example, democracy or a state) that they are not willing to fight and die for themselves. The Iraqi's have no intention of living with one another, so what is the point of trying to impose something on them (with our blood no less!) they don't want.
Though "clear, hold, build" is a good strategy, it will not work for Iraq.
Take care.
Many reading and learning about islam on this website understand they would not get this information from the PC liberal media. my point is that you have to come to the same logical conclusion that the same PC liberal media will not allow you to see progress in Iraq. most of the killing (80percent)is around Bagdag. Leaving now will only
make terrorist bolder, the military needs to be unleased and take down terrorists aggressively. mistakes were made in the past, but allowing the democrats any concessions would weaken the US.
Maybe Goode could extend an invitation to the Muslim American Public Affairs Council to absolutely condemn, without qualifications or reservations, all Islamic groups who advocate or carry out violence against Isrealis or Americans. He could also invite them to unreservedly condemn those who seek to impose sharia law anywhere in the world, particularly the parts of that law that govern the rights of women and non-muslims. His invitation should also extend to them an opportunity to explain if they refuse such condemnation.
And that is the only communication Goode, or anyone, should have with them until they reply.
Hugh suggests:
I think a lot of conservatives, hawks and patriots are worried that pulling out of the democracy-building effort, after Bush committed this nation to it, will be seen as a sign of weakness by terrorists.And so, I offer my own slogan, one that Muslim terrorists won't consider a sign of weakness:
"Don't cast exquisite Western pearls before Muslim swine."
Let's see what the Islamists would make of THAT.
The political tragedy for America is that there was never any sizable opposition to the Bush war policy coming from the political RIGHT-WING.
Conservatives, more than liberals, are receptive to the idea that democracy in the Muslim world is, if not impossible, extremely difficult to achieve in any reasonable time frame as an antidote to the immediate terrorist threat we face.
Yet almost no conservatives were willing to say publicly that a corollary to that was that Bush's Iraq War policy was going to fail, and needed correcting. Faced with antiwar opposition from the LEFT for totally other reasons, the RIGHT circled the wagons around Bush and hunkered down, cheerleading the Bush policy against their better judgment.
Many conservatives knew we weren't sending enough troops to do the job.
Many conservatives had real doubts we could ever "democratize" the Muslim world.
Many conservatives even winced at Bush's assertions that Islam was a religion of peace--it's routinely mocked on right-wing websites like littlegreenfootballs.com
But when the Democrats started attacking, they reflexively sided with Bush, "one of their own," for reasons of party loyalty and political loyalty.
As a result, the American people were given only two choices: Thinly disguised appeasement from the Democrats, or an unrealistic armed neo-Wilsonian democratization experiment from Bush.
In fact, the only right-wing columnist who comes to mind as fundamentally challenging the Bush policy is Diana West.
SOMEONE LIKE SPENCER SHOULD COACH VIRGIL GOODE, WHO IS THE ONLY ONE ABLE TO INFLUENCE POLITICS AT THIS JUNCTION. NO ONE ELSE IN CONGRESS/SENATE REALLY SEEMS TO BRING UP THE ISSUES OF MUSLIMS IN THE WEST. ...FORGET IRAQ. START FOCUSING ON THE JIHAD AT HOME. THANK GOD FOR GOODE DARING TO STAND UP AND SPEAK UP.
Nobody is leaving Iraq untill Iran is dealt with. The Military will never be able to engage the force necessary against Iran if Troops are re-deployed in the fashion Demoncrats suggest.
Let us not forget that "Terrorists" still conducted operations against Western Intrests, set up financial networks to fund themselfs, and developed the basics for a world wide terror network. All at the same time the two Camps of Islam fought themselfs through their proxies. What we call the Iran/Iraq war.
Given the current Political Climate, prematurely leaving Iraq will only be projected as a loss for us through our own MSM. While giving more ammunition to even worst reporting for us in Europe.
Israel "lost" its confrontation in Lebanon simply because the Press said they did. What makes anyone think the same won't happen to us?
It is not "if" we leave Iraq. It is how and under what circumstances we leave that matters.
Unilaterally leaving without other Foreign Policy changes will only leave our door open wider than it was when we started.
Right now, we can kick in any door we want to to look for who we want. Just try doing that here and see where it gets you.
It may well be easier in the end to introduce Iraq to Democracy than it is to Re-Introduce it back into Socialist Europe.
It would appear to reasonable people that it is the United States who are the only ones willing to draw a line in the sand as to what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. Sane people would rather see that line drawn in the Sands of Iraq than the Mud along the Mississippi River.
An invitation to "explain" and "share a dialogue" with Islamics to a US Congressman from some Moslem organization does not deserve an answer.
The Congressman answers to the people in his district who elected him, not to these interlopers promoting a foreign and hostile ideology.
"We've done all we can." or "It's now up to the Iraqis." or "We shouldn't be caught in the middle of a Civil War.
wrote Hugh.
Amen.... except Hugh doesn't go far enough. All "we've" done is replace a secular tyrant with an infinitely worst Islamic tyranny. At least under Saddam, Iraqi women and Christians weren't any worse off than every other Iraqi. Now women are being forced into hijab and Christians are being exterminated. But Bush thinks this is all progress. Maybe Bush has found a way to victory in the same place he found all those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to have.
The only victory possible in Iraq will be if the country is didived into four nations. Notice I wrote FOUR not three!!! The Christian Assyrians deserve their rightful independence and no solution that ignores them should be acceptable to any of us.
Bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities and military so that they are not going to be a threat to Iraq's new government for 20 years, give the keys to Iraq and leave.
Then put 100,000 troops on our own borders and stop Muslim immigration cold.
Then fore Reformation talks with the Muslims we already have here. If those don't go well, kick them all out to Canada, Mexico and overseas.
That's my advice to the President.
Simple, brutal, effective and offensive to UN sensibilities. Must be the right choice, because everything I just typed would save millions of lives over the next 100 years.
Or we can go on status quo, wait for more Muslims to arrive, Iran to become a nuclear power and Europe to vanish into oblivion before our very eyes while we see the same poison from Saudi Arabia enter the minds of our own children, and presto-changeo -- Amerabia!
Sorry Hugh.
Brilliant and reasoned as you are, cannot agree,
(dont agree with your environmental position either; economics will decide the future of oil, not government - and am pro nuclear power)
To leave Iraq is to hurt Pax Americana upon which our properity and peace rests. If we leave we hurt ourselves.
There is no such thing as an "innocent" practicing muslim, because they have guilty knowledge of the evil in the koran and in Mohammed's life. We should not be advised on the mid east by practising muslims. That we have allowed sharia in Iraq and Afghanistan is an abomination and a serious mistake on our part.
But we are where we should be, and we must prevail.
Practising muslims are not, and according to the koran, cannot be our friends ('make not friends with the infidel'), but we must keep peace and prevail over this evil ideology, not only in argument, but by killing those who would kill us.
"we are where we should be [in Iraq], and we must prevail."
-- from a posting above
Please tell me what outcome would mean "we had prevailed."
Here are some possibilities:
1) The Sunnis are after years of fighting and more expense conclusively crushed by American power, and must finally yield to being dominated by the Shi'a who will run everything, and share the oil wealth, precisely as they see fit.
2) The Shi'a miilitias are after years of fighting and more expense conclusively crushed by American power, so that the Sunnis recover lost ground, and Sunni terroirsts based in Anbar Province and in Baghad are able to drive many Shi'a further south and to maintain control of Baghdad.
3) The Americans manage to crush, equally, all those who use violence, whether Sunnis of the local Al-Qaeda group, or other Sunnis not of the Al-Qaeda group but merely locals determined to recover what they regard as rightful Sunni Arab supremacy, or Shi'a militias whether conntected to the SCIRI party, or Da'wa, or to Moqatada al-Sadr's Jaish-e-Mahdi. All parties consequently agree to sweetly and permanently compromise in the Western mannter, and Iraq becomes a prosperous, safe, model unto the Muslim nations.
4) The Americans do not manage to crush either the Shi'a militias or the Sunnis who refuse to accept their new, much diminished status in Iraq, though a great deal of damage is inflicted on them, with many Sunni and Shi'a casualties, but in the end, their numbers seem to be inexhaustibly replenishable, both from local Arabs, and from co-religionists (Arabs and Iranians) from outside Iraq.
5) The Americans leave, and the Sunni and Shi'a Arabs engage in ever-more violent acts against each other, and both sides receive help from co-religionists -- men, money, materiel -- outside Iraq, and many tens of billions or perhaps even a hundred billion or more, is used up by each side to fight the other, and there is never a point at which a political compromise, of the kind that would be so obvious and so possible in the non-Muslim world, can be made, or if made, kept. For the attitudes of Islam encourage a victor-and-vanquished view of things; the idea of political compromise is as unnatural to Muslims steeped in Islam as it would have been to Muhammad, and the world-view that Qur'an and Hadith and Sira naturally encourage, when it comes to the Muslim attitude toward Infidels, easily carries over into the attitude of one kind of Muslim, whether defined in sectarian terms, with the Sunnis lording it over the Shi'a, or in ethnic terms, with the Arabs claiming that Islam in essence is universalit but still belongs to, can be claimed by, them, the "Best of Peoples," and Islam is a vehicle for cultural, linguistic, and political imperialism.
The endless Shi'a-Sunni conflict in Iraq naturally has consequences wherever there are large numbers of Shi'a: in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Yemen, in Eastern Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon. It also has consequences for the Sunnis in Iran.
And it also will permit the Kurds in the north, by sect largely Sunni, but for other historic reasons more worried about the Sunni Arabs (who killed them under Saddam Hussein, and also resettled in order to arabize formerly Kurdish villages and cities).
Now choose from among the five possibilities listed above.
Or if there is still another outcome you think likely to come about, describe it.
Now tell us which outcome, in your view, is the one that best corresponds to your idea of the Americans "prevailing."
Which idea, that is, leads to the greatest damage being done to the Jihad world-wide, that is to the image, and the power, and the coherence, and the unity, and the ability to inflict damage on Infidels, of the Camp of Islam?
Go ahead. At this thread. Post your answer. Take a few hours. Take a day. I'll wait right here.
Darcy posts:
I'm very glad about Virgil Goode and hope he ignores the Muslims' invitation."
Not worth your time, Virgil. Ignore them.
Dittos Darcy! You say it best for me.
I try to ignore your incompetence, Fitzgerald, but just can't again. Sorry, your cut and run cowardness masked as intellectual analysis of what "we SHOULD do" is embarrassingly detrimental to the presentations made by the great minds of the non apologist scholars, and real leaders: Jamie Glasov, Daniel Pipes, Melanie Phillips, Andrew Bostom,Brigitte Gabriele, Daniel Rubin and of course the great hero and man of indominable fortitude, albeit he has been wrong on Iraq as have you, Robert Spencer.
Here's why you are a fool. Within the year, no doubt, as Islamic spiritual - religious steps (invitations to convert to Islam have been addressed to the president and the American people and appropriate warnings have been given) that must be taken before Islam can begin its set piece battle in the US have already been completed, we'll likely see 7 populations centers nucleartized and 104 storage bins with nuclear waste blown to smitherenes. The Hezbollah styled guerrilla war will be started full force here in the US, and in Britain and Europe. The rest of so called moderate Islam will watch jihadist fighting on the streets of America killing millions of us with radiation fallout and homicide bombings, not to mention automatic weapon fire deployed in common intersections. Seeing this invasion and mass death here will be interpreted by the moderates that allah wants them to join what remains of Iran after we have nuked it, and over throw their own secular Islamic goverments from Istanbul to Egypt to Indonesia, and they will then unite around the world to form the long sought after caliphate. Our Army there will be surrounded, but it will nevertheless go to the heart of the enemy that has yet to be crytalized into glass by our nuclear response, and that strategic effort will save our asses here until we can kill every single jihadist in the West. Maybe then, we can start cleaning the fallout from our crop lands and water supplies,if that is even possible.
We don't need now any silly academic historians without a degree or iota of training in real war or twit of command experience like yourself dividing the great effort being made to fight jihad. Just keep hammering on your expertise, which is intervening with scholarly efforts on Islam's al Taqiyya component of jihad. Please leave the analysis pertaining to the fighting component of this war to the real men and courageous women who stand their ground in battle, who know what real war, killing and loss of compatriates is about. You just slink on off somewhere and keep hiding behind the great character of your family members who did their duty honorably. STOP supporting John Burtha, Pelosi, Kennedy and the other turncoats. Hell. Jane Fonda's even back and pretty soon you'll be quoting her as your new leader on war strategies.
Your commentary and intellectual fighting with jihadists and their supporting Islamic moderates and their non muslim apologists is highly helpful. Your military analysis is moronic.
Yours truly,
Jesse Collins
See posting just above. Especially this part:
"Here's why you are a fool. Within the year, no doubt, as Islamic spiritual - religious steps (invitations to convert to Islam have been addressed to the president and the American people and appropriate warnings have been given) that must be taken before Islam can begin its set piece battle in the US have already been completed, we'll likely see 7 populations centers nucleartized and 104 storage bins with nuclear waste blown to smitherenes. The Hezbollah styled guerrilla war will be started full force here in the US, and in Britain and Europe. The rest of so called moderate Islam will watch jihadist fighting on the streets of America killing millions of us with radiation fallout and homicide bombings, not to mention automatic weapon fire deployed in common intersections. Seeing this invasion and mass death here will be interpreted by the moderates that allah wants them to join what remains of Iran after we have nuked it, and over throw their own secular Islamic goverments from Istanbul to Egypt to Indonesia, and they will then unite around the world to form the long sought after caliphate. Our Army there will be surrounded, but it will nevertheless go to the heart of the enemy that has yet to be crytalized into glass by our nuclear response, and that strategic effort will save our asses here until we can kill every single jihadist in the West. Maybe then, we can start cleaning the fallout from our crop lands and water supplies,if that is even possible."
So: not 6, not 8, but "7 population centers nucleartized [sic}" and not 103, not 105, but exactly "104 storage bins with nuclear waste blown to smitherens [sic]."
And then there is that "Hezbollah styled guerrilla war" which will be "started in full force here and in Britain and Europe [sic]" war
Without having to shave my head, I'd still like to be moderator of my own show, modelled on "Deal or No Deal."
So, audience, what do you think?
Sane, or Insane?
Sorry Jesse, to call a fine mind a fool is to demean yourself.
Hugh: to prevail in Iraq is to bring it in and keep it in the hegemeny of America.
It is not for the Iraqis to love us but to respect American power: we will be unable, given the koran, to have these people love their fellow man; one would be satisfied if they fear the consequences of attacking their fellow man whether it be an infidel or another muslim.
Keeping Iraq is depriving the jihadis, killing those who wish and do take up arms. One keeps killing the enemy until they cry uncle, and that is what happens.
Iraq is a success which can become a failure if America gives up, or loses heart. The average American will not give up, even when encouraged by turds like Pelosi or Murtha.
History is replete with lessons about winners and losers. Here we are at one of the greatest times in human history when our parents who have gifted us with life require that we honor them with our best judgement in our course of action.
Both of us believe we are right. I will bet on the strong horse, the more gorgeous women, the more attractive community, the stronger and closer families. Why ask for impossible proof ?
Anyway, I love the West and want us to win. And so do you or you would not give so freely of your outstanding intellect.
Aparte de mi este caliz.
Good God.
Double, Good God.
As I am in the audience or readership of this Comments section, and as Hugh asked for opinions about the controversy, I will give mine.
The dog-pile on Hugh is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Disagreements among us need not give rise to ad hominem argument.
The scenario presented by Jesse Collins is interesting, but unless he is privy to jihadist planning, speculation. Whether it is prophecy remains to be seen.
The argument is whether to keep American troops in Iraq or not. Hugh's opinion does not make him a coward. The attack on his lack of combat experience and degrees in military science are without merit.
The people who do have these these attributes are not able to solve the Iraq situation.
Hugh proposes to keep troops in Iraq, but not as a constabulary to stop the sectarian strife.
As far as sanity or not, the present situation in Iraq is not the result of a course of action based on reason.
Unless we, the United States, fight to destroy those who threaten to destroy us, not for the benefit of the "people" of Iraq or Afghanistan or to bring "democracy" (everybody vote now!) to them, we cannot win.
If these countries are within our hegemony, I'd hate to see the ones that aren't.
There is one aspect of Iraq no one considers. The Children. We will most likely never change the opinions of the parents. The Goal is to offer the Children an alternitive to the Violence they live through. A contrast only avaliable as a result of American and Foreign Troops deployed there.
All these Fundimentilists are Brainwashing their Children to hate and kill us. How are we to counter this if our only option is by forced interaction?
The History Channel is repleat with programs covering US Forces operations in Iraq. They quite openly show the level of restrictions our forces operate under as a result of being the "Guests" of the Iraqi Goverment vs an Army of Occupation.
The change of "policy" has more to do with removing the restrictions our forces operate under. As well as who we can now drag in to question.
As for the "surge" in Troops. I really have a hard time seeing the 3rd.Id. and the 82nd. Airborn being sent to do "Police" work.
The Iraqi Army, as flawed as it is, may be the only vehicle where forced intergration may work. It was the US Army that ended segration long befor the Nation as a whole did. So there is the possibility of things improving.
Either way, the US is going to Blood the Iraqi Army in the process of trying to bring stability.
Long term, I see little value in re-arming Iraq to the point in can defend itself against its Neighbors. It is better to reduce Iran to the level of Iraq. Or at least threaten to reduce Iran to the same level of Iraq. Then we may actually find out how much Iranians really want "Freedom".
As for Jesse's conserns, There may be a touch of hyperbol expressed. It still addresses a problem we face even now. Reading Steve Emmersons current Book leaves little doubt, if only to me. That these people have been here for quite some time. With law enforcement well behind the curve in being able to do an awful lot about it. It would appear to be but the tip of the Iceburg.
Re-calling the Malvos and their exploits, the LA. Bank robbers in the mid 90's who shot up the place, or even the Anthrax mailings. To think of sleepers doing something like this x 100 would just about grind the Nation to a halt.
What we really need is a campain that can deminish the value of Heaven in Muslims eyes. Demonize the motivating factor behind Jihad.
Really, is fornicating in a puddle of Blood generated by 72 violated Vulvas really any Mans idea of Paradise. Just a thought.
"Hugh proposes to keep troops in Iraq, but not as a constabulary to stop the sectarian strife."
-- from a posting above
No. I don't. The posting elsewhere that suggests that was put up first on February 20,2004. About two weeks later I realized that it did not make sense to attempt to keep American troops there, not least because as the Sunni-Shi'a split widened, and there were more unpleasant things done by each side, if the American troops remained then soft-hearted Americans would demand some kind of intervention, and that is exactly what I think should not take place, has taken place too much, at great cost, at no benefit to American and Infidel interests -- the only interests that interest me.
By March 2004 I was advocating a complete withdrawal and writing about the Sunni-Shi'a split that was inevitable. I haven't stopped repeating the same things, with variations and curlicues, ever since.
We should come to some agreement as to what our goals should be.
A slow Infidelada or a fast one?
Hugh,
For us to just leave Iraq would be an act of monumental stupidity.
If it came to pass, my vision of your enlightenment as to the error of your ways is the closing scene in "Bridge On the River Kwai"
when Alec Guiness realizes his monumental stupidity in his previous position and tries to make amends.
Appreciate the Italian quote but find it not apt. A little too haute royal.
Your choice of alternatives are just not all the real possibilities.
I believe that Iraq is a success, and that the West can continue to pull it off.
I disagree about you being a coward, far from it, but I belive you are wrong about oil, wrong about the environment, and wrong about the right course in Iraq.
But you are right about islam - you encouraged us to read the koran, and you are right about it; it fosters the seeds of hate.
In my view islam is evil, and every practising muslim in the world is responsible for its evil in allowing it to continue.
but you are