English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Left thinks Iraq is a killing field for Americans. Actually, it is a killing field for our enemies, at a very great but vitally important sacrifice. That reflects a grand strategy, tailored to the peculiar nature of the global terror threat. You don't shoot poisonous fire-ants with a BB gun; you just set an ant trap. Ant colonies are highly "distributed" biological societies, much like the world-wide web. They can't be killed with a BB or a pressure hose; even pouring flaming gasoline on an ant hill won't work. Instead, you destroy ant colonies by attracting hungry ants to a chemical bait, and then kill them all in one small place. Ant traps work. That's the Bush strategy in Iraq. Al Qaeda isn't centralized, with big cities or steel industries like Nazi Germany. So you can't destroy the enemy by hunting them one by one. Rather, you bait a trap -- provoke them to come to you, and make sure they don't get out alive.
Iraq is a trap for Al Qaeda.

2007-09-12 06:26:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Our mere presence in the heart of the Osama's Caliphate-To-Be draws them like ants to sugar. General Petraeus just reported that

"...in the past 8 months, we have considerably reduced the areas in which Al Qaeda enjoyed sanctuary. We have also neutralized 5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters. Al Qaeda is certainly not defeated; however, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively."
Most of the Qaeda fighters come from Saudi Arabia and other breeding grounds. Now that the Sunni tribes are turning against them, they are more exposed and hunted than ever before. Wars are fluid and unpredictable, but no one can imagine that Al Qaeda is happy with its victories since 9/11.


In Afghanistan, they have been on the run since 2003, although the Pakistan border regions continue to supply new recruits.

2007-09-12 06:28:30 · update #1

20 answers

I can't answer anything about their intelligence without getting a violation notice but they worship critical theory and will criticize the sun coming up.

2007-09-12 06:30:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 6

Sorry, "Sam Donaldson", I didn't hear a question in there?
Read "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut, you'll understand why war is wrong.
Or ask any of our combat-wounded what they think of Uncle Sam. Something tells me you've never served on the battlefield. It's usually that type of thinking that sends young men off to their death, and drains tax payers' wallets. Don't get me wrong - we bombed Afghanistan after 9/11 in retaliation. It was necesarry. But Iraq has less to do with 9/11 than you think. The military, funded by American citizens, armed Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Take a Political Communications course. It's enlightening...
"Empty barrels make the most noise."
-Old Proverb
PS - You're talking about one end of the political spectrum, i.e. LIBERALS. Democrats are a political party, encompassing conservatives, liberals, and "middle-of-the-road" types, just like the Republicans, and all the other political parties. Sounds like you could use a Political Science course, too. And to all you "liberal media" types, there's no such thing as a "liberal media". It would be more accurate to call it the "Nielsen-ratings media", the "corporate media", or the "media media". Broadcasting is funded by advertising revenues. TV and radio stations just need to keep you interested long enough to watch commercials, so you'll buy their advertisers' products. News has to be entertaining and ratings-worthy; hence, news reporting and journalistic integrity going down the toilet. News has been entertainment since the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News started piddling in the journalistic swimming pool that Edward R. Murrow built for America. If you don't know who Edward R. Murrow is, read a book. Or at the very least, watch "Good Night, and Good Luck".
We Americans are supposed to be independent! Read a BOOK, for crying out loud! Don't let the mindless drivel of the idiot box (TV) do your thinking for you! Think for yourselves!

2007-09-12 07:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by freethinker1973 2 · 0 0

I'm a "Dem" and I don't think the war in Iraq is a complete disaster. I'm sure our military is doing the best they can and having some real success, even though it may not be going as quickly as some would like. I would never talk bad about our troops and think they are making a great sacrifice and doing what they think is right. I think the frustration for a lot of left-leaning people is that we should not have gone there in the first place. That still is a major sticking point with me. But now that we're there, I don't think just pulling out is the best option. We need to fix what we started and do the best we can. But I hope we learned a lesson in all this and won't jump into another war for a dubious reason.

2007-09-12 06:32:12 · answer #3 · answered by ♫ Sweet Honesty ♫ 5 · 4 2

The crimes that a US President would be charged with are extremely slender: "The President, vice chairman and all civil officers of the USA, would be removed from workplace on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or different extreme Crimes and Misdemeanors." If telling political lies grew to become right into a criminal offense, what flesh presser does not be in penal complex ? And, theres one element with having a majority interior the homestead and the Senate, and its some thing else to have a veto evidence majority, which the Democrats have not got in the two homestead. Plus, an impeachment of Bush might seem, to somewhat some us voters, as a sort of "payback" for the attempt to question Clinton. that should backfire, politically, in a great way.

2016-10-10 10:55:38 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yep,

But we can't see all of the results about variables of heating up an inflamed regional area that could lead to a third world war including Russia and China? Your logic is right, but it may be more than we bargained for.

2007-09-12 06:50:52 · answer #5 · answered by TAHOE REALTOR 3 · 0 0

Iraq is not a "killing field for our enemies." The Iraqis never attacked the US--and had nothing to do with the people who did. They are fighting us now because Bush invaded and stole their country and they want their cuntry back.

Meanwhile, the neocon hero Bush has allowed our REAL enemies ti sit safe and sound in Pakistan where Osama has rebuilt his organization and resources.

Further--the neocons "justify" this by saying it is okay to invade a country that never attacked us and was not a threat to us, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroy their society--merely to create a "trap" to lure some of the al-Qaida foot soldiers out to bekilled.

Anyone who supports that doesn't deserve to be called an American--they don't even deserve to be called a human being.

2007-09-12 06:35:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Your analogy is flawed in many respects but one important, glaring one. Ants are a distinct species, they cannot be created by the actions of humans. Al-Quaeda on the other hand are created and can be created by the actions of humans. In invading Iraq, we have emboldened the recruiting efforts of Al-Quaeda throughout the middle east. There are now more anti-american jihadists in the middle east rather than fewer.

2007-09-12 06:39:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

So there have been no American deaths in Iraq? Is that what you are saying? Ants and humans don't think alike. The Guerrilla warfare that defeated the US in Vietnam is taking its toll of more than3000 Americans in Iraq. When no organized army is used guerrilla tactics need to be employed. Everywhere where such tactics are used the stronger component has fallen. We did that to the British in our revolution yet, although more than 200 years have passed we still haven't learned. When we don't learn from our own experience we are bound to eventually lose.

2007-09-12 06:35:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I totally agree with you! It's it funny how the libs never compare the number of American Casualties in this war to previous wars? It's best to fight this enemy outside of our own borders! And why won't the media report how many of the enemy we kill daily? The attention is always on our losses, not our gains! Our soldiers are heroes! We should hear about their successful missions and kills but we don't! You'd think our liberal media wants to help the enemy!!
We can't make America stronger than Al Qaeda but just ignoring them! They want to kill us! Focusing our attention solely on ourselves and our borders is like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand and saying, "I'm safe! I'm safe now!" Stupid is as stupid does!!

2007-09-12 06:34:39 · answer #9 · answered by Lover of Blue 7 · 2 3

don't you think it is a bit childish to think that if we start some war in Iraq that ALL the terrorist in the world are going to just flock there and let themselves get killed??? There are terrorists all over the world, including terrorist cells IN the U.S.
They do need to be hunted down. The war in Iraq is exactly what bin Laden and company wanted the U.S. to do in response.

2007-09-12 06:39:46 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2 2

I wish you would grow up, and stop coming on yahoo answers pretending to be all grown-up, and choosing a random political party..when you probably don't know what it means..

2007-09-12 08:25:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers