Friday, September 24, 2004

War - by Ichabod Crane


In eighteen months of war in Iraq we have sustained over one thousand casualties. They include both those killed in direct action, indirect action (beheadings, etc.) and outright accidents (like when a truck went of the road, into a ditch and rolled over, killing the driver). That’s 18 months with 1000+ casualties.

In WWII we had 295,000 casualties from Dec 7, 1941 through August 15, 1945; that is 44 months. There were never cries about a quagmire. There was no effort to get out because there were too many casualties. Casualty reports were not a political tool used to unseat FDR. The media never accused FDR of not having an ‘exit strategy.’

There were 6700+ casualties a month during WWII; there are about 55 casualties a month in Iraq. The terrorist are pouring into Iraq where we get to shoot them like fish in a barrel. Are the Presidents opponent(s) trying to say that it would be better if the terrorists were engaged somewhere else? Why? Where?

I am thinking that “The War on Terror” is only going to be won when we eliminate the terrorists; that is what we are doing now. While every life lost is precious the only way to give meaning to those fallen warriors is to fight the war to a victorious finish. Otherwise they will have died in vein. That is unthinkable!

If we stop engaging the terrorists in the Middle-East then we will have to meet them in the streets of America. They have said so; they said it loudly and clearly on September 11, 2001, didn’t you hear them? They have sworn to destroy us and our way of life. They are not open to negotiation. It is us or them.

I like us, even if we sometimes don’t agree, we don’t try to kill each other over things like whether or not women should be seen in public without being covered from head to toe. We kill each other for manly reasons like if we should allow religious cults in the desert their right to privacy. Even then we mostly just kill them.

So, I’m in favor of killing the terrorists where they come from so that we can get on with our lives here. We are doing that and at a fantastically lower cost then we did it a half a century ago (1340:11). That is over 121 times fewer casualties to do essentially the same thing. At least until they get “The Bomb” that is.

I think we need to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors now before they start helping the terrorists (Hell, they are the terrorists) with a nuclear device. Once they start to build bombs where do you think they will detonate them? Will it be Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Rome, London, NY, Washington DC, or all of the above and more?

Only the number of bombs they can make before we stop them limits the places. How many of the world’s cities should we say is enough? I say zero and we need to act now. The UN has already declared itself useless in this (and every other) matter. In for a penny, in for a pound as the British are want to say.

What is unfortunate is that the political campaign of John F’ing Kerry is using our troops as hostages and giving aid and comfort to our enemies (something John F’ing Kerry mastered in the early 70’s). I think that this is inhibiting the Commander-in-Chief from doing these things now. I think he is holding back, to avoid the ensuing controversy, until after the election. I hope that it won’t be too late.

A nuclear blast over Baghdad would be a real blow. It would certainly boost the casualty rate and bring the Iraqi elections to a halt. The tens or hundreds of thousands of souls that would be knocking on Heaven’s Door would have liked it better if we were quicker to remove the Iranian nuclear threat as well.

Doing it now, however, in light of the politicizing of the war as it is, might be political suicide for the President and therefore a more serious blow to world peace in the long run if it were [political suicide].

FDR never had this problem; republicans were just better behaved I guess. Even when it cost them an election, they thought of the country first.

I heard John F’ing Kerry say that going to Iraq was a mistake. It would have been a mistake, perhaps, if we didn’t find any terrorists there; but we are finding more terrorists there then we did in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what ‘The War on Terror’ is about?

John F’ing Kerry said that we were not safer for having gone to Iraq because Iraq has become a haven for terrorists. How does that not make us safer? Where would he rather have the terrorists, in Nantucket so that he could get another medal for personally fighting them there? I personally like that they are somewhere else and that we are killing them there.

Our main-stream news agencies have become a fifth column. They are doing more to help the terrorists than Cat Stevens raising money for them. By dividing the country and causing the terrorists to think they can win by the same means the North Vietnamese won by; that is by turning public opinion against the war. That is suicide!

These agencies have got to go, and the best way to be rid of them is to stop watching them. No ratings no commercial money, no commercial money and they will have to close shop. They are a disgrace. At what point does the First Amendment end and the Sedition Act take over?

It was never about WMDs, but we still need to find them. It wasn’t about freeing the Iraqis, but they are learning freedom. It was always, first and foremost about destroying international terrorism and with it the people and the governments that support it.

It is about survival at the most primal level.

No comments: