I’ve struggled to find just the right topic for my first post; there are just so many great subjects to write about: Eminent domain, creeping socialism, border security/sovereignty, our socialist… err, progressive tax code, and so on. But I decided to take on the biggest issue in the world - World War IV to be exact. I’m pretty sure some controversy will generated for simply calling the War on Terror(ists) by its proper name, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway. My reasoning for the naming convention is due to my opinion that the Cold War was World War III. We fought the communist Soviets and the Chinese for decades via proxy wars like Korea and ‘Nam. Additionally, we financiered a number of WWIII battles through Afghanistan and Iraq, to name a couple. Eventually, it was an economic battle that eventually ended the Communist Soviet regime.Anyway, on to the topic at hand… World War IV.
In 1993, we were first attacked, and war was declared on the Western World by Islamo-fascists. Though this is indisputable, our country did little to combat the terrorists. U.S. military targets were attacked repeatedly throughout the 90's with nearly no retaliation. Our country's inaction (remember we were busy unilaterally splitting up Yugoslavia), both militarily and informational, towards planned attacks had two outcomes: it emboldened the radicals, and it gave them more than a decade to infiltrate our sovereign land and kill over 3,000 innocent people in the Twin Towers.
One of the most pathetic complaints I hear about our role in the War is the lack of a connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. Guess what? There are connections. That’s connectionS. Certainly, if there were connections we’d see them laid out on the nightly evening news, right? The picture painted by the national news media is one of things becoming bleaker each day. As well as what a liar Bush is… Oh, and Cheney’s – no, Rove’s – no, Cheney’s lapdog. Maybe he just splits his time between laps. Bush is stupid, though his grades were better than the last two presidential Democrat candidates. And Bush’s recent polls show his approval at lowest levels ever, but the media didn’t widely report that only a little more than one third of those polled were republican (about 35.5% of the CBS poll) – not an accurate representation of America.
But, I digress. Let’s journey back to the beginning when the national media was calling for 25,000 body bags. Does the word quagmire come to mind? Quagmire became almost as popular of an adjective with the national media while describing the war as their references to Vietnam. But, after over two years, less than 2,000 soldiers have been killed in battle. The number the national media provides includes friendly fire accidents and behind the scenes accidents. Just for factual completeness, I’ll mention that the number of dead soldiers given also includes domestic deaths of soldiers (meaning, you don’t have to die in the Middle East to be included in the death count). Just to add some perspective on this particular point, in Vietnam we lost about 250-300 men a week for a decade before the Senate got their paws into military matters (eventually costing us the War).The latest cry from the national media is that Iraq is on the verge of civil war. If you talk to the people that are there, the Iraqi citizens and the military support, they’ll tell you a much different story. I think the biggest tell there is in that the vast overwhelming majority of the country has no terrorist insurgent violence. The bombings are mostly within the Sunni Triangle and on a couple border crossing areas. There is also a consensus that the majority of trouble makers are foreigners like Iranians and Syrians. We also have a new document, a smoking gun, if you will, that has come to light. The original and translated versions can be viewed here: iraq_- al Qaeda_link. Just days prior to the Iraq invasion, a large convoy of trucks crossed the border into Syria - this is where the majority of WMD’s are believed to be presently stored. A second convoy, consisting of three large cargo ships, was tracked through the Persian Gulf days before the Iraqi battles began, reportedly ended up in Yemen. I’m sure all of that was just foreign aide from a benevolent dictator, right? To add to the case presented, here is a partial list of the WMD’s found within the borders of Iraq:
- 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
- 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
- Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin
- Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form (airborne dispersal over populated areas)
- Additional reportings here
Agreed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, there are links between the Taliban, al Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin – the executors of 9/11, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And we should not forget that the United Nations passed a total of 19 resolutions providing legality for war against Iraq post-failure of sanctions, inspections and repeated bombings by coalition forces during the entire Clinton administration. America and our allies are partaking in WWIV, and western civilization is at stake. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who we’re fighting, but the lack of realization that we are in a war with Islamo-fascists will be inherently detrimental to our society. And fighting this fight on the terrorist’s turf is much better than the D.C. Democrat’s plan to allow the War to occur on American soil; is there really even a debatable issue here?
Islamo-fascists declared war on America and the Western World, not the other way around. Every 20th century war the USA fought in was a pre-emptive war. And Bush is not a criminal for using military force; part of the genius of the Founders of our country was that the President could use military force to protect us without a formal declaration of war, which is made by Congress.
We need to stand up to ensure America will leave a better world for our children – just as those past generations did for us (save the hippy gen. who’d rather be their child’s friend than parent). I do not want my children, or my neighbor’s children, to have to take up arms against terrorists. This fight needs to occur now and it must be fought with all the military might at our disposal wherever the fight takes us.
1 comment:
I recently commented that I had not provided source material for my post involving the population of the world vs. the number of stars in the universe. I thought this was a relatively innocuous omission since it was very easy for me to find those facts with a straightforward Google search. Moreover, the information itself was harmless.
By contrast, I think that the information contained in this post regarding the discovery of WMD's in Iraq is deserving of a firmer foundation. I checked the link to "additional reporting" but that opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal failed to lend any credence to your claims. I turned then to Google (as I often do) and uncovered the following information:
It appears that your source material is David Miniter’s Book ‘Disinformation’ which has been identified as containing some factually incorrect and/or misleading data. Miniter claims that WMD’s were actually found in Iraq, but that this had been largely reported in the main stream media. This claim is false.
Miniter claims that in Iraq we:
- Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
- Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
- Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
- Found: 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
- Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
The truth is that:
The 1.77 Tons of Enriched Uranium
The Energy Department announced in July 2004 that it had removed from Iraq “radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.” This included the “1.77 metric tons of LOW-enriched uranium.” The reason the Administration is not now touting this as evidence of WMD is because they would be laughed at by anyone with more expertise than David Miniter. Low-enriched uranium cannot be used in an atomic weapon-only as reactor fuel, a purpose which Iraq was entirely free to pursue under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN-imposed WMD restrictions.
The 1000 Radioactive Materials
Pointing to the applicability of nuclear materials in a “radiological dispersal device” is utterly disingenuous-these materials exist, legally, in nearly every country on earth. One might as well point to cutlery in someone’s kitchen to “prove” he is plotting murder. In fact, the hideous irony is that in the chaos of the 2003 invasion, nuclear facilities were plundered and much nuclear material was indiscriminately released-resulting in a real radiological hazard for local Iraqis (as we reported at the time). Leave it to Bush to actually create the very danger he uses to justify his military adventure.
The 1500 Gallons of Chemical Weapons
Then, there’s the supposed “chemical weapons.” Oops! Turns out when you actually read the original source (Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2005) it wasn’t “1,500 gallons of chemical weapons,” but just “1,500 gallons of chemicals.” These were potential “precursor agents” for chemical weapons, the Pentagon boasted upon the discovery-but the fact that the Administration is no longer touting these claims is evidence the supposed weapons program didn’t get very far, if it existed at all.
The Roadside Sarin Bomb
The two roadside sarin shells were of an ancient vintage, dating from the 1980’s, prior to the first Gulf War. It is of particular note that other than the two isolated shells found, no more have turned up, leading to the obvious conclusion that these two stragglers were simply the last rusting vestiges of a long-abandoned program. We KNOW that Saddam had a chemical program prior to the first Gulf War, but we can also safely conclude that he had nothing after the Gulf War. This was confirmed by the Bush-appointed Duelfer Report.
The 17 Chemical Warheads
Even Fox News had to admit that the cyclosarin warheads found by Polish troops in July 2004 “date back to Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran in the 1980s.” The BBC added that “the US military said the agent was so deteriorated it posed no threat.”
For me, the most obvious shortcoming of your dubious assertion that WMD's have been found in Iraq is that no one in the Bush administration is actually making this claim. If this were true, why wouldn't Bush be on his soapbox right now proclaiming the righteousness of the invasion on the basis that WMD's were, in fact, a legitimate reason for our attack? Instead, Bush is attempting to re-write history to reflect ulterior motives and justifications for the war, i.e., taking the fight to the terrorists, regime change, establishing a stronghold for democracy in the Middle East, etc.
Now, I'm not saying any of these things are bad ideas, necessarily, however, I am saying that we, as a nation, do not need to be in the business of starting wars to promote the spread of our core values, ideals and beliefs. When you get down to it, this simply is not a war over the safety of America. History will not permit itself to be written by politicians, and history will be the final arbiter of this president's legacy, a legacy which I believe will reflect many more failures than triumphs.
Still think that WMD's were found in Iraq? Listen closely to the president's words and you will see for yourself the way that he dances away from the claim that Saddam had a weapons program, opting instead to speak of the "knowledge," the "means" and the "intent." Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it in my book.
Links to source material:
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?page_id=38
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041007-6.html
Post a Comment