Search This Blog

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Iraq, Propaganda, and Ignorance


Now that the election is over, many are calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Nancy Pelosi is one of the biggest advocates of cutting and running. As she said, "I am what I am... I am determined to get us out of Iraq."

Understand this: Liberal loons like Pelosi and John Conyers and John Murtha and Carl Levin are determined to see the United States withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. They see the vote for Democrats as a vote for withdrawal. I am certain that people like Dennis Kucinich take it that way. He says, "We can either cut and run or stay and pay." Now, the vote for Hoyer over Murtha for House Majority Leader on November 16th tells us that not all Democrats are ready to do any cutting and running. Some of them have had second thoughts on the matter. God help us if they don't!!!

The Military knows better!

General: Timeline Could Hurt Iraqi Transition
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 (UPI) -- Flexibility is key for Iraq`s move to independence, Gen. John Abizaid told a U.S. Senate panel, and a troop withdrawal timetable would harm the process.

'Failure to stabilize Iraq could increase Iranian aggressiveness and embolden al-Qaida`s ideology,' Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He said it also could worsen sectarian violence 'already apparent throughout the region.'

Abizaid said military and diplomatic leaders believe it`s possible to achieve stability in Iraq, but 'we`ll need flexibility to manage our forces and to help manage the Iraqi force.

'Force caps and specific timetables limit that flexibility,' he said.

Abizaid said he was encouraged that the level of sectarian violence in Iraq, while still high, isn`t as bad as it was in August. Confidence also is building in the Iraqi government, he said.

Noting the committee will focus on the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq, Abizaid asked the committee to be mindful of threats from Iran and the 'pervasive global threat' of al-Qaida and its associates.

'The changing security challenges in Iraq require changes to our own approach to achieve stability,' the general said, adding he was not speaking in favor or against any options the committee would consider.

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

Cassandra waxes eloquently on this subject.

Senator Hillary Clinton - "Hope is not a method."

Gen. John Abizaid - "I would also say that despair is not a method."



Perhaps you are aware that North Korea is a sealed nation, in which the government controls the dissemination of ideas and the nutso dictator is viewed as a human god. Perhaps you consider Kim Jong il to be a dangerous man, and he is. On the other hand, he is most interested in keeping his power in North Korea and accumulating money. He is a lone-ranger kind of problem who is dedicated to the promotion and preservation of one thing: Kim Jong il. Islamofascists are far more dangerous to us because they seek our domination and/or destruction!

We really don't understand what propaganda is in this country. Our press leans left, but it remains a free press and all sorts of differing ideas can be expressed in the news, on the internet, on television and radio. The government does not mandate that only certain ideas be expressed. So we haven't experienced the information environment typical of an Islamofascist nation. Yes, there are Islamic nations in which the news is completely controlled in the same way it is controlled in North Korea.

I've perused the internet and found videos that have shaken me to my very foundations: Videos depicting children being indoctrinated morning, noon and night to make them into suicide bombers, videos about the decapitation of innocents by terrorists, videos of angry crowds calling for death to America, to England, to Israel. If you work at it, you may still find some of these things online if you truly need to see them.

Glenn Beck has a program that runs on the Headline News Network, and yesterday he ran a segment about the indoctrination of Islamic youth in places like Iran and Palestine and Saudi Arabia. For some viewers this is news. For many of us it is merely a reminder of the sad-but-truth. Literally millions of young Muslims are raised believing that in fact Jews are bloodthirsty murdering demons and that Americans are power-mad purveyors of nonstop sins and determined to wipe Islam from the map. But this program may well have been news to many Americans.

Systematic Indoctrination

How is this done? Indoctrination begins at home, where parents are taught to grow up young suicide bombers step-by-step, including a nightly recitation of an Islamic marty's prayer! Schools teach the standard party line that Jews are "pigs and apes" and that America is the "Great Satan." Islamic cartoons depict innocent Muslims being murdered by Jewish barbarians who drink their blood. School children learn songs extolling the joys of jihad and the glories of Islam. Propaganda is presented as fact in schools, in the papers, on television and radio throughout Iran and other such nations. Millions of young Muslims grow up believing preposterous lies are factual. They therefore are willing to give their lives to kill non-Islamic peoples, for they don't believe that any of us are innocents. They are taught to believe that we all seek to destroy Islam and drink Islamic blood! From morning until evening a young Iranian will only hear of the glories of Islam and the Iranian people versus the evil Americans, Jews and others in the free world.

As All Things Beautiful points out, Saudi Arabia is on the terrorist's side, too.

The laws of Saudi Arabia, based upon the sharia law mandated by the Koran, do not recognize the rights and freedoms guaranteed Americans by the Constitution. The Saudi government makes no secret of its ambition to export Islamic tyranny worldwide, as the Koran commands.

The result is that so many who seek our destruction truly believe in the correctness of their war of domination. For Islam, the front line in this war is in Iraq. Here, they are told, Islam confronts the enemy. They are told that America is weak and by giving their lives to cause destruction in the region America will give up and retreat. Islamofascists need Iraq and Afghanistan to become Islamofascist nations again, to solidify their base of operations. From here they seek to conquer and destroy us. Don't you doubt it for a minute!

If we leave Iraq before Iraq can govern and police themselves, Iraq will be overrun by the Islamofascist terrorists. The lives given by our fallen troops will be given in vain. The Al Quaedas of this world will have another base of operations. The Osama's of this world, who have opined that America is weak and vulnerable to conquest will trumpet our leaving as a great victory for their Jihad.

See what they are saying right now! - Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Yahya Safavi on Iranian TV:
'The Americans Have Many Weaknesses'; 'We Have Planned Our Strategy Precisely on the Basis of Their Strengths and Weaknesses'; U.S. Forces in Iraq 'Are Very Cowardly'; 'We Never Reveal All Our Cards to the Enemy'

Within eighteen months of our leaving Iraq a large attack on our soil will occur. Don't forget that I have said it. It will absolutely happen. Islamofascists will no longer fear us and, not having to face us down in Iraq, can turn their efforts towards destroying Israel, conquering Europe and the rest of the world. They sought to turn us into an isolationist nation, cowering within our borders, falling into recession and then depression as we do it. Islam will continue to grow in Asia and Africa and the genocides will multiply. They will conquer the rest of the world and then, finally, take on the USA. This is the game plan.


How stupid are we, really? Do we not see that Iran is racing to get nuclear weapons? Don't we understand that a free Iraq is Iran's nightmare and the best means by which Iranian patriots can receive aid and information as they seek to find ways to overturn the terrorist regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Why do they think that Islamic terrorists from all over the region come to Iraq to fight and die? For a fun vacation???

Peace at any price? The price of easy peace by running away is defeat down the road. You cannot run from the fight, for the fight will follow. We take the terrorists down now, in their back yard or we face them later in ours. You don't want your sons fighting in Iraq? Okay, but you AND your sons will be shooting at terrorists from their back windows instead...if the nuke doesn't take you out first!

You think I am alarmist? I am simply giving you the Islamic game plan. Job one is to get us the heck out of Iraq. Nancy Pelosi is becoming as important to the cause of Islam as is Osama Bin Laden. John Murtha is doing the work of the enemy. The clamor of cowards and communists and peaceniks following in the wake of liberal moonbats like Kucinich are dangerous to the well-being of our country.

Look, Ahmadinejad is simply another Hitler, bent upon world domination and mass genocide for dessert. There are millions of young Muslims who are dedicated to the cause of our subjection and/or destruction. Free countries in which information is also free are the enemy of totalitarians. If we help Iraq survive we are also protecting our own way of life. How many ways can I say it?

Let's be blunt about it

Remember all those slogans about 9/11? Never Forget?! Based on the election results, looks like never lasts about five years. I am warning all of you newly elected Democrats, if you help force us to leave Iraq before Iraq can stand on its own, you will not simply show the world that America is weak. You will have brought death and destruction upon thousands of your fellow citzens in the near future. In fact, knowing the enemy, you yourselves might well be targets. Once we have fled Iraq, why should they fear attacking the capitol? What are we gonna do, fight back?

I'm telling it like it is. If you want us out of Iraq right now you are either ignorant or stupid. You either don't understand the situation or you are incapable of realizing the dangers.


Humorous aside!


creeper said...

Radar and others,

could you enlighten me as to what exactly the "stay the course" strategy entails? Withdrawal was Bush's plan too, once upon a time, IIRC. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "get out now" stance, but I would like to see someone articulate a coherent exit strategy of some kind. Simply demonizing any withdrawal plan as some kind of cowardly "cut and run" isn't really an answer.

Obviously we can't stick with the present level of troops over there forever, but how are things going to get better with the current situation as a starting point? What is the best result we can achieve in Iraw, and how can we get there?

As for "never forget 9/11"... that's pretty much what Bush did when he pulled resources out of Afghanistan so he could invade Iraq. Have his actions reduced the level of the global terrorist threat since then?

radar said...

First, the General outlined the current plan, so if you go back to that link and read it you will see what the plan is right now concerning "stay the course." He believes we should bring in more training troops to accelerate the training of their security forces for now, and then as Iraqis show their mettle we begin phasing our own security troops out. Therefore, the plan continues to be to help Iraq take over its own security and truly become a sovereign nation that doesn't require our forces to continue to exist.

If we don't stay the course, all the work will be for nought, all the deaths for nought, all the millions spent also for nought. We will have simply put off the problem for awhile rather than actually address it. But a secure and free-standing Iraq helps secure Israel and Afghanistan and helps those who struggle for freedom under totalitarian rule in places like Iran as well. Iraq is either an oasis of freedom in a desert of Islamofascism, or it will be a haven for terrorists and totalitarian thugs who use sharia law as a cloak in order to maintain total power over millions of people.

Second, we needed to take resources out of Afghanistan because we had trained them to do their own security and they were ready to be a sovreign nation. How can you criticize the successful implementation of the game plan in Afghanistan? It is exactly the same thing we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.

We have some troops in Afghanistan now that are doing further training and providing a backup security presence to threaten the Taliban but the Afghanis are carrying the water there. This is precisely where we are headed in Iraq.

As for the cut and run, that was the phrase Kucinich used when he said we can either "cut and run or stay and pay." I would add that we either stay and pay now or leave and pay a whole lot more later. I will freely demonize that idea as the cowardly and selfish plan that it is!

Third, since we haven't had any more attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq that has to be considered an easing of the threat level. Having decimated Al Queda and related organizations has to be considered progress towards that end as well.

creeper said...

"He believes we should bring in more training troops to accelerate the training of their security forces for now, and then as Iraqis show their mettle we begin phasing our own security troops out."

Umm... hasn't that been the "plan" for approximately three years now? Isn't that what the original idea of reducing troop levels in 2003 and 2004 was based on? I'm not looking this up in detail right now, just going on my rough recollections of the time. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected.

If I do happen to be at least broadly correct, then something's a little off here. Either that plan is proving very difficult to implement or it's not yielding the results we would like.

"If we don't stay the course, all the work will be for nought, all the deaths for nought, all the millions spent also for nought."

I can appreciate that train of thought, but I guess it's a matter of how one assesses the situation. If there is a reasonable expectation that the idea of a flowering democracy serving as an example for the rest of the Middle East can be achieved - and a plan put in place to achieve this - then the decision to invest more lives, time and money may sound reasonable.

If, however, it looks like given our current strategy results in either more of the same or an increasingly worsening situation, then it may well become a matter analogous to "throwing good money after bad". What exactly has been going wrong the past three years, and how will current strategy (whether it changes or stays the same) change that?

And if there is no strategy to get us to that better outcome: what exactly are we gaining by investing more lives and money?

As several commenters have been happy to point out, Bush has succeeded in some/many/most of the objectives of invading Iraq. Surely at least some of the investment to date would then be justified by that.

"How can you criticize the successful implementation of the game plan in Afghanistan? It is exactly the same thing we are trying to accomplish in Iraq."

Would you consider the present state of Afghanistan the shining example that Iraq is supposed to represent to the rest of the Middle East?

And if you do, how do you think today's Iraq can become that?

"Third, since we haven't had any more attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq that has to be considered an easing of the threat level."

I wouldn't consider that a very reliable metric at all, since by this standard we would have been extremely safe on September 10, 2001, which I'm sure you agree in hindsight would have been delusional. We have no idea what the current status of terrorist sleeper cells in the US is.

radar said...

Creeper, you have lots of questions and no answers, which sounds like the basic Democrat position. I wonder what the world situation looked like in early 1942? More to the point, how settled were things in this country, in, say, 1778? Did we have a settled government with a Constitution and a secure situation? Heck, we were nearly taken back by Britain in 1812! Well, more to the point they could have beaten us and controlled us in the first few years had they made it a priority, which they did not.

Afghanistan is a success by simply existing. It will be years before they have their internal security issues resolved, but like I said the same is true of the good old US of A. It requires more time to leave Iraq on its own, too.

creeper said...

"you have lots of questions and no answers"

Damn straight. I'd like advocates of the "stay the course" strategy to explain what it entails in today's context. Is it more than an empty phrase? How is it different from our strategy in 2003, and what is the expected outcome?

"which sounds like the basic Democrat position."

Ha! And evading questions and pointing at a supposed "basic Democrat position" instead sounds like the basic Bush apologist position.

Since you seem to be "cutting and running" on this question, may I take it then that you can't articulate an answer about what the "stay the course" strategy entails other than doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting it to eventually have a different outcome?

"Afghanistan is a success by simply existing."

"Simply existing" is the inspiring example you want to present to the Middle East?

"It requires more time to leave Iraq on its own, too."

So are you now saying we should "leave Iraq on its own"? Wouldn't that entail a withdrawal of some kind?