They always want to 'start' or 'continue' a war regardless of it's morality.
Jack Cafferty of the Christians Neocon Network AKA CNN on? American ? Morning literally had a 'hissy' fit because he feels the national priorities are eschewed. He is referring to the article in the N Y Times:
Army to Call Up Recruits Earlier
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/politics/22recruit.html?hp
WASHINGTON, July 21 - In what critics say is another sign of increasing stress on the military, the Army has been forced to bring more new recruits immediately into the ranks to meet recruiting goals for 2004, instead of allowing them to defer entry until the next accounting year, which starts in October.
----------
He cites the issue as if there is a reason for an escalation in the 'ILLEGAL' war in Iraq.
These people are very limited in their ability to see a direction of peace. That lack of ability rings loud and clear in the reporting on a regular basis. Both CNN and Fox never discuss peace but only further war. A viewer will never hear the words “PEACE INITIATIVE.”
Cafferty was ranting about reductions in the Federal Budget to better fund and enlist soldiers to continue a war that was ill conceived in the first place.
At no time does he take into account that if a war is ill conceived and ill deployed there is an aire of defeat that one has to face. I think a resigned general stated, any initative in Iraq requires 200,000 soldiers? Anyone remember that? If the defeat is known at the beginning of the invasion then DON’T GO !!! When the decision to ‘Go or No’ is being decided it is safe to say if the military deployment less a full one third of the invading force needed then the answer to the initiative is No, we don’t go ! Flying by the seat of one’s pants and making up the strategy as we go is not victory but only misguided wishful thinking guaranteed to fail.
CNN admits the 9-11 Commission, however, is correct in that the nation no longer is secure. Interesting, they admit the nation is less secure because a war effort has spawned more terrorists than is captured or killed but won’t admit the war is wrong or defeatist. Tell me that makes sense.
YET.
CNN continues their short-sighted view that the answer as a military front on Arabian soil.
That's incorrect.
The issue is NOT Arabia.
The countries of Arabia are not a security threat to the USA.
The 'terrorist networks' are the issue. A general war with Arabia is not going to accomplish anything except more destabilization of the area.
Indeed, if the USA honestly assesses itself in Iraq it would realize it is already defeated and a continued presence in Iraq only increases the resistance.
I cannot believe how they present this material. This program is chronically inflammatory in their demeanor to attempt to have feel people threatened and willing to be 'mindless' idiots ready to jump to the 'call of war.'
The Christian Neocon Network (CNN) has chronic issues with misplaced priorities.
Last night on NewsNight during Morning Papers once again an exclusive religious focus was the Christian Science Monitor. CSM is a troublemaker for the Neocons. It pretends to have an expertise in it’s religious endeavors no other news service can provide when in fact all the publishers of CSM provides is inflammation of a single fictitious issue as a reason for raising the hackles of the public with misinformation and hence driving the political structure to war by popular demand. The article below is as false as it comes. There is no association between Iran and al Qaeda except the one that every Arab nation has with al Qaeda’s ability to infiltrate the country and dominate the lower class to violence against it’s own government. They the West wonders why countries like Indonesia have such profound problems with domestic terrorism. It is not the leadership of these countries that are the issue it’s the terrorist networks that live among their people. One of Bush’s favorite expressions is ‘…countries that harbor terrorists…’ That is a hideous and open ended statement. Every country on Earth harbor’s terrorists, but, they don’t do it willingly. I would like to point some really lame insight by this 'sorry' publication:
Anti-Iran sentiment hardening fast
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0722/p01s03-wome.html
Critics in Congress finger Iranian ties to Al Qaeda and influence in Iraq as cause for a tougher approach.
By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Iran's governing mullahs may feel uneasy at the prominent attention they are attracting in the US as the 9/11 investigations conclude.
But a bigger worry for them may well be the growing signs that the US Congress - even without the 9/11 reports of Iran's ties to Al Qaeda - is pressing for a tougher approach toward Tehran….
… In a report this week, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) task force co-chaired by former CIA director Robert Gates and former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended a Nixon-to-China approach to Iran.
Mr. Brzezinski notes that much of the American public and diplomatic community were skeptical of prospects for relations with China when President Nixon made his diplomatic move - yet Nixon set the stage for engagement with a global giant. "Recall that the statement of principles [the US and China initially signed on to] didn't solve any issues, but it pointed the way," he says.
And Mr. Gates notes that the presence of 140,000 US troops on Iran's western border has no doubt influenced Tehran's calculations for relations with the US.
A NIXON-TO-CHINA APPROACH?
There was no war that was a threat to China when Nixon opened relations there.
I THINK A WARRING USA FORCE IN IRAQ HAS THE IRANIANS A LITTLE UPSET. I think they have a right to be upset. I DON’T BELIEVE THE IRANIANS ARE INTERESTED IN TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE USA ANYTIME SOON??????????????
I agree with Mr. Cafferty in that all the incumbents should be thrown out, but, I disagree the reason.
Peace not War.
De-escalation for American Involvement in Iraq and not escalation.
Trusting the UN rather than unilateralism.
In other words, Mr. Cafferty sees the Republican incumbents as incompetent because they can’t FIND REASON, regardless the Christian Science Monitor’s hard work to point the direction for a further escalation of the war to further invade other countries. This is how the ‘electorate’ end of the stimulation to war begins and it’s with the Neocon Press. Right or wrong they lead the way without yet intention or reason by the government ‘to go there.’ Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
