On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your
evidence that Bush was responsible for those attacks?


No, we got into the Afghanistan war due to the attacks on NY and DC. Iraq
was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders, and the
stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?

Bush's big mistake was to not trust the American people with the truth
about this war from the beginning, choosing instead to tout a
simplistic justification for the war, the possibility of Saddam Husein
developing nuclear weapons, instead of laying out the real strategy
and trusting the people to understand.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with
Islamofascism. This is an asymmetric war, and the primary problem in
this sort of war is to get the enemy to engage on terms under which we
can win.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
a decade or so, and they are patient.

So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
kind of war we can win.

This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
would have been saved and the new government would have been
stabilized.

Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
nuclear war.

Don