http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2004/11/article02.shtml

"As it enters its second term, the Bush agenda remains the same: global domination. Our response is the same: global resistance. There is o­nly o­ne thing that can frustrate the empire’s dark aims in Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere: the militant solidarity among world’s peoples. Making that solidarity real and powerful and ultimately triumphant is the challenge before us."

This is a very interesting article about how the Global Jihadists plan to defeat the United States.

The article was very interesting, but I have a few things I would like to point out regarding it. . .

In regards to his statement about American attitude. In my opinion America is not leaning drastically right, they were just fed up with the absurdness of the far left, which was more immature in their accusations, and propaganda than the right was. The silent majority, and the popular vote proved this hand in hand.

In regards to Muslims all over the world hating America. I will believe this accusation when I see the news media, which predominately follows the leftist talkin point, shooting film of Iraqi and Afgan civilians protesting America in their streets. I have not seen this yet. All I see is militants blowing themselves up, and they are not Iraqi civilians; they are known as insurgants, or better yet terroritst.

He also states that we need Europe to survive. . . not true. They need us as much as we need them. We provide them with a place for immigrants(a lot might I add), business(jobs going over, military bases), and a surplus of security at hand.

This article also is based on the very demeaning assumption that all form of government in Iraq, and in Afghanistan will falter. More than half his arguement lies in that fact, and for the record neither government has faltered yet. And if bets were being made in Vegas I guarentee a lot of people would have already lost money.

Thanks, and sorry for the length.

I didn't even find it interesting. It was someone's drug induced hallucination of what they would hope comes to fruition. The people of the United States may be somewhat divided at the moment, but when push comes to shove we will stand united against those who would see us fail. Viet Nam should be a once in a time line instance where we would be twisted into a defeated people. I pray we learned from that instance and will never allow it to happen again.

GW I have a question for you, what do you mean a once in a time line instance where we were twisted in to a defeated people? I don't know about you but I was there and I do not now nor then feel like I was defeated, I take that as an insult as the rest of the vets should. While I agree with some of what you said in your post, that is the only part I will take offence with.

quote:

---

There are some 130,000 US troops in Iraq today. Simply to fight the guerrillas to a stalemate, o­ne would need at least 500,000 troops for the level of resistance that o­ne finds in Iraq today.

---

I would be interested in knowing where the author got this figure from. Did he speak with our military leaders on the ground for an expert estimation, or just pull it out of thin air?

Also, coachman, I may be off base here but the way I read GW's post I took it to mean he was refering to the split in our nation, not a defeat in Viet Nam. Between the deaths in country, the way our piliticians were running that war, and the way protesters were doing their thing, including their treatment of returning vets, it was a very harsh time in our history. There never seemed to be solid, unilateral support for the troops (which had never happened to us before). Again, I may be off base, but that's what I sensed he meant by a defeated people...all Americans, not specifically the troops. My $.02 on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coachman:
GW I have a question for you, what do you mean a once in a time line instance where we were twisted in to a defeated people? I don't know about you but I was there and I do not now nor then feel like I was defeated, I take that as an insult as the rest of the vets should. While I agree with some of what you said in your post, that is the only part I will take offence with.

---

What I was referring to was the media's twist that caused the American people here at home to accept defeat because it "appeared" we were losing. I would never attempt to tell anyone who fought there that we lost because they were defeated. It was not my intent, if you took it that way. The American people here at home caused us to be a defeated people, not you or anyone who fought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crimefighter:

quote:

---

There are some 130,000 US troops in Iraq today. Simply to fight the guerrillas to a stalemate, o­ne would need at least _500,000 _ troops for the level of resistance that o­ne finds in Iraq today.

---

I would be interested in knowing where the author got this figure from. Did he speak with our military leaders on the ground for an expert estimation, or just pull it out of thin air?

Also, coachman, I may be off base here but the way I read GW's post I took it to mean he was refering to the split in our nation, not a defeat in Viet Nam. Between the deaths in country, the way our piliticians were running that war, and the way protesters were doing their thing, including their treatment of returning vets, it was a very harsh time in our history. There never seemed to be solid, unilateral support for the troops (which had never happened to us before). Again, I may be off base, but that's what I sensed he meant by a defeated people...all Americans, not specifically the troops. My $.02 on that.

---

I already responded before I saw your post, but you hit it dead on center steel. I never meant the military was defeated and therefore WE were a defeated people. I meant WE, the people here at home, through pressure on the government, caused by bad reporting by the media, caused US to be a defeated people for the first time in our country's history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GraeWolphe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coachman:
GW I have a question for you, what do you mean a once in a time line instance where we were twisted in to a defeated people? I don't know about you but I was there and I do not now nor then feel like I was defeated, I take that as an insult as the rest of the vets should. While I agree with some of what you said in your post, that is the only part I will take offence with.

---

What I was referring to was the media's twist that caused the American people here at home to accept defeat because it "appeared" we were losing. I would never attempt to tell anyone who fought there that we lost because they were defeated. It was not my intent, if you took it that way. The American people here at home caused us to be a defeated people, not you or anyone who fought.

---

That's the way I saw it too, it wasn't the soldier's defeat, it was what America chose to believe. If we would have had full military in command and not the press and the polititians, Vietnam would have been a win . . .

Ok GW i see your point but that time in my life is special to me I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. PEACE BROTHER

Shinseki wanted 500,000 troops. Recently, Gen. Love said we would need 400,000.

Know someone personally leavin next week..will be there for the election..man...

There's a grain of truth in much of that article, though it's seriously slanted (what a surprise) and while most here might or might not agree with it, it would be foolish to ignore it's implications.

It seems that our adversaries have taken a page from our history books, studied closely, and are trying to come up with a unified approach. That could be dangerous for us because it worked before and there doesn't seem to be anything which can prevent it from happening again, EXCEPT A CLEAR-CUT, EARLY VICTORY!

The longer this war goes on, the easier it will be for opposition to get organized and the more effective they can be over time. PLANNING to take 20 or 30 years to accomplish our goals plays right into the enemy's hands and it almost assures a repeat of Vietnam. The American people understand the issues, they understand that we must fight, but they won't tolerate taking forever to do it. That gives the anti-war organizers time and ammunition.

We really need to go after those nations which support the jihadists with crushing force and get it over with.

Hiya Kit!

On the money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thud357l:
Hiya Kit!

On the money.

---

RE: Well, let's see what the President has to say during his second inugural address today and the State of Union address coming up.

Couldn't have said it better in your statement Kit. We do need to go after these jerkoffs in every country they are in. . .but logistically can we do it right now? I think you would really have to increase the number of spec ops. . . but that would mean making their entrance training easier, and that is a NO go IMO.