Attn Wal-Mart POS

[ShooterMcGavin]

i dont think you are giving them enough credit, i dont think its a matter of the time it took to plan the attack, i think its a matter of patience, and looking for the right opportunity, noone expected 9/11 to happen, and we are starting to return to normalcy, mark my words, when america least expects it 9/11 will happen again

you tell me how many insurgents are already planted stateside? you think were alone here? youve got another thing coming, keep thinking 9/11 was a once in a lifetime thing, this is the world we live in now

so how is committing all our manpower and monetary resources across seas the answer to preventing 9/11 from happening again? how many times has it been proven by various agencies that it's not that hard to sneak weapons onboard aircraft still even 6 yrs after 9/11? how much dignity will you have as an american when you're required to strip down to near nakedness when going through airport security when our technology and equipment there is CLEARLY lacking?

[Spectic Tank]

so how is committing all our manpower and monetary resources across seas the answer to preventing 9/11 from happening again? how many times has it been proven by various agencies that it's not that hard to sneak weapons onboard aircraft still even 6 yrs after 9/11? how much dignity will you have as an american when you're required to strip down to near nakedness when going through airport security when our technology and equipment there is CLEARLY lacking?

but...we're saving the world!!!

Team America...FUCK YEA!!!

["B"]

so how is committing all our manpower and monetary resources across seas the answer to preventing 9/11 from happening again? how many times has it been proven by various agencies that it's not that hard to sneak weapons onboard aircraft still even 6 yrs after 9/11? how much dignity will you have as an american when you're required to strip down to near nakedness when going through airport security when our technology and equipment there is CLEARLY lacking?

Is Pulling Troops out of Iraq Truly the Right Thing to do?

Bryon D. Pflueger

Axia College of University of Phoenix

COM120 Effective Persuasive Writing

April 22, 2007







Is Pulling Troops out of Iraq Truly the Right Thing to do?

On March 19, 2003, a “coalition of the willing” (Bush, 2002) invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. This coalition was led by the United States and President George Bush. With the primary mission over in Iraq, the President declared the end of major fighting on May 1, 2003. Yet over four years later, America seems to be “bogged down in Iraq”; media polls are showing that the majority of Americans would like to see an exit strategy. However, leaving Iraq would be more of a disaster than staying put. The forces in Iraq are a vital part of America’s global projection of power and defensive strategy, and are the glue that is currently holding Iraq together.

The Publicity War



The Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq are waging a war of attrition against the United States; basically waiting for the U. S. to just get tired of war and leave. They figure that if enough body bags come home to American families, there will be popular opinion to pull troops out of Iraq. Their plan is working extremely well with the general population in America, as day in and day out another soldier is lost.



Al Qaeda in Iraq has won a major victory against the United States military. This victory did not take place on the battlefields of Iraq, however; it took place in the polling booths of small town America. On November 7, 2006, America collectively took the pro-war Republicans out of Congress and installed a new Congress; one controlled by the anti-war Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi’s main argument to pull troops out of Iraq is that the lives of American troops are not worth the price being paid.





Speaker Pelosi (and her counterparts in the Senate) have effectively hijacked the military and have continuously tried to tie the hands of the President of the United States. They recently have passed new Legislation calling on a total troop withdrawal from Iraq. This Legislation is not likely to pass; as it is basically a shot in the direction of the White House and the current administration. But what happens when the troops do leave Iraq? John Mueller (2007, 6[4]) writes:



“. . . America’s exit from Iraq will exhilarate international terrorists because victory over the U. S. will seem even greater than victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden’s theory that Americans can be defeated, or at least inconvenienced, by inflicting comparatively small but continuously draining casualties on them will achieve apparent confirmation.”



While every soldier lost is a tragedy in itself, only 3,322 (Griffis, 2007) have lost their lives in Iraq in over four years. In comparison, 2,973 (CNN, 2006) Americans died in the early morning hours of September 11, 2001. Although there is no direct link between Iraq and what happened on that fateful day in 2001, the fact of the matter is that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since. One could argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Iraq, but foreign fighters have flocked to Iraq by the thousands. Some of these fighters might have been trained to come to America instead but have been diverted by their leaders. They are now attacking armed American troops instead of unarmed and unprepared American civilians.



The Iraqi Military Structure



The Iraqi Interior Ministry is not capable of securing their streets, let alone their boarders. After the invasion was over, the Iraqi military and police were dissolved. This was done partly by the new Civil Administration in Iraq, but mostly by the Iraqis in these units themselves. Entire brigades of the Iraqi military just melted away into the population; members of these units just put their weapons down and went home. It was obviously a mistake of the Civil Administration to officially dissolve the Iraq armed forces, but this can not be undone four years later.



While a new Iraqi Defense Force is being trained, it takes time to fill the ranks. Most of these recruits are not seasoned veterans, but teenagers looking for work. They are easy targets for the foreign fighters. There have been many attacks against police and army recruiting stations around Iraq. Once a recent recruit has been killed, someone must be trained to take their place; it is not like training a soldier here in the United States.



Whole units of the Iraqi Defense Force have been found to be insurgents. These “death squads” as the Iraqis call them, are made up almost entirely of either Sunni or Shia. They go around harassing and killing people of the other faith. These units are hard to weed out because of the fear among the local population.





The Iran Connection



The Iran connection in Iraq is undeniable. Iran is a Shia dominated country, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khaminei. It has been reported by all three of the major American media outlets that Iran is manufacturing and supplying weapons and ammunition to Shia militias in Iran. In fact, on November 30, 2006, ABC reported:



“U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.”



Why would Iran supply weapons to the militias in Iraq? With the United States buried in conflict within Iraq, there would be less of a threat to the national security of Iran. Despite reports that America can fight a two front war; this is just not the case. The military is currently being stretched to its limits. If America cannot enact its preeminent strike policy, there is no threat of a large ground invasion to Iran. But this philosophy also works against Iran. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has been effectively boxed in by the United States. The President of the United States, by using effective political and military maneuvering, has killed two birds with one stone.



Is Iran’s policy simply to keep the U. S. mired in Iraq or part of a bigger plan? The answer is not simple, but the facts speak for themselves. Iran has constantly defied the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran wants nuclear weapons and has banned IAEA nuclear weapons inspectors from entering Iran. They have also disabled all of the IAEA security cameras placed in Iranian nuclear facilities.



Tensions between Iran and the West have increased lately with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, repeatedly stating that Israel should be destroyed. In addition, on March 23, 2007, Iran seized 15 British sailors. The seized British sailors were operating under a UN mandate and within Iraqi waters with permission from the Iraqi government.



With Iran’s influence, Iraq’s policies would shift dramatically. Iraq currently has a pro-western government. If Iran was able to control Iraq through Iraqi leaders who took refuge in Iran during the Hussein regime, Iraq would back away from the West and become isolated just like the Iranian regime. The only difference would be that Iran would control a good portion of the oil output from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which already controls 79% of the world’s oil reserves (www.opec.org, 2006). This would be devastating to the economies of Western governments.



Antiwar advocates are saying that our occupation of Iraq is just another example of American imperialism. They also say that American lives are not worth a free Iraq. This isn’t about any of that; it is about keeping America safe. Having troops in Iraq puts American lives at risk, yes; but imagine how many more lives might have been lost if these terrorist had made it to the United States or Europe. This President has put the United States in a unique position. The United States is not only keeping terrorists from attacking its homeland; but also keeping Iran from gaining too much power in the region. We can not afford to pull troops out of Iraq and God help us if we do because the repercussions will not affect us, but our children.

References

Griffis, Margaret (2007), Casualties in Iraq, Retrieved April 22, 2007, from AntiWar.com Web site: http://antiwar.com/casualties/

Karl, J, & Clancy, M (2006). EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia. ABC News, Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=2688501.

Mueller, John (2007), What If We Leave?, The American Conservative, [6(4)], [7-9,5], retrieved March 27, 2007 EBSCOhost database.

OPEC Share of World Crude Oil Reserves (2007). Retrieved April 22, 2007, from OPEC Web site: http://www.opec.org/home/PowerPoint/...EC%20share.htm

President Bush, George H.W. (2002), during a new conference with the President of the Czech Republic.

Solemn tributes mark 9/11’s fifth anniversary (2006), retrieved March 27, 2007, from CNN.com Web site: http://cgi.cnn.com/2006/US/09/11/911...als/index.html

[Leadfoot_mf]

so how is committing all our manpower and monetary resources across seas the answer to preventing 9/11 from happening again? how many times has it been proven by various agencies that it's not that hard to sneak weapons onboard aircraft still even 6 yrs after 9/11? how much dignity will you have as an american when you're required to strip down to near nakedness when going through airport security when our technology and equipment there is CLEARLY lacking?

well do something about it then. you went to tech, your an engineer please dont tell me you are wasting your degree on logistics.

[ShooterMcGavin]

well do something about it then. you went to tech, your an engineer please dont tell me you are wasting your degree on logistics.

i will, make me president first though