Showing once again that the will of the American people and the laws of the United States of America mean less than nothing to them, liberals and leftists have found a viable way to accomplish their continuing planned destruction of America—without the pesky practice of including the voting electorate. They have declared and established “sanctuary cities”, where the rule of law is no longer practiced or even encouraged. In fact, if certain laws are followed, said law-followers are subject to firing—if not arrest. New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco*, Denver, Cambridge, Baltimore and a growing number of other liberal and leftist-run cities have now been joined by the defiant pro-illegals faction in New Haven, Connecticut. And no one from the federal government appears to be doing anything—whatsoever—about these growing lawless and anarchistic hordes. In fact, as many members of the current administration seem to strongly support the illegals’ position, it is the illegals—not US citizens—who are given special considerations to not be required to uphold the laws of this country.

Note: When lawmakers and law enforcers refuse to adhere to and support the laws of a country, said country’s very existence will not long be an issue. Instead, it will fail and fall into the dusty pages of history as a ‘once-was’ entry.

Due to the unchecked and growing revolutionary contingents within our midst getting away with all manner of law-breaking, the chances of the United States of America surviving as a nation has—once again—taken a very large step backwards. As an example, speaking of the recent New Haven succession from sanity, Immigration Attorney Susan Church said of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement): “…ICE is an agency that’s under funded, that’s irrational, that when they deal with immigration, they deal with it in an irrational and incompetent manner!” Because Ms. Church and others of her ilk believe that ICE is “incompetent and irrational”, they do not feel bound to uphold laws against the illegal multitudes’ entry into the USA. That’s their excuse and they’re sticking to it. Liberals believe—and are now very vocal about it—that if they don’t like and don’t agree with a law, they don’t have to follow it. Even those in the legal community—like Ms. Church—seem to believe they can now disobey the laws of the land rather than working to change them.

Note: Ms. Church and her like-minded colleagues know full well that if they actually tried to change the law to allow illegals the same or greater rights than those afforded US citizens, the American people would rise up against them; just as they did to stop the Illegals’ Amnesty Bill. Can’t have that, so these same lawbreakers established their sanctuary cities to both bypass the law and we-the-people.

As there have been no repercussions experienced by the pro-illegals’ lawbreakers, they have become increasingly comfortable with their defiance of the rule of law. These same criminals—with increasing membership from our leftist ‘legal’ community—also encourage the illegals to break the laws of the USA and to demand rights previously afforded only to those who have legally earned US citizenship. No doubt this is what inspired illegal alien Elvira Arellano, who had been hiding in the sanctuary of a Chicago church for over a year, to leave for Los Angeles. As nothing is being done by authorities to adhere to her deportation order—Ms. Arellano is a repeat illegal entry offender—she feels comfortable coming out into the open and beginning her new career as an illegal speaker for the anti-US Open Borders cause.

Note: Don’t forget. Without recognized and enforced borders, there can be no countries.

With an increasing number of lawbreakers being allowed to get off scot-free and we-the-people being prosecuted for upholding the laws of the land, can a new civil war be far away? Recently, I have been asked that question by a growing number of citizens.

One of our most revered presidents Abraham Lincoln, reminded us during his Gettysburg address that the US government was founded “of the people, by the people and for the people.” President Lincoln also commented that as long as this remained true, that government “shall not perish from the Earth.” When those who ignore the law are encouraged and those who maintain it are jailed—as were USBP agents and a Texas Deputy Sheriff—our government no longer adheres to these principles and the country is already in jeopardy of its survival; or has already died. Either we fight to continue our way of life or we submit to the worldwide terrorist groups—of myriad persuasions—that are fighting hard to end our way of life and our lives. At this juncture, we still have a choice. But, that choice may not exist for much longer.

References:

US sanctuary cities
LexisNexis
Chicago Tribune
Bartleby

—

Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

1. [...] RELATED: Liberal States Engaging in Anarchy For Illegals Money to Burn: New S.F. health plan attracting members fast Democrats Shortcircuit Border Enforcement, Demand Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Number of immigrants hits record 37.5M: California Leads the Pack — September 12, 2007 @ 5:31 am

2. [...] RELATED: Liberal States Engaging in Anarchy For Illegals [...]

   Pingback by California Conservative » Next Step towards USA Dissolution Given Tacit approval by Feds — October 30, 2007 @ 1:04 am

1. Well, sanctuary cities are bad enough, but I live in a sanctuary state (Oregon). I’ve got neighbors across the street who are not only illegals, they are purchasing the house with the encouragement of a national bank!

   And we have one of the highest murder-by- illegals rates in the nation. I wonder why?

   Comment by Carlos — August 20, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

2. This is a very important issue facing America. If cities refuse to enforce the laws and states refuse to hold said cities accountable, they should lose all federal funding. Not just the city, but the whole state.

   Let’s see how welcome illegals are then.

   BTW, I read this article on my podcast. Great job.

   Comment by Duane Lester — August 20, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

3. Define the opponents of the up-coming Civil War? Who will be on who’s side?

   Trust me Ive been screaming CW2 for awhile but I still cant come up with this simple answer…

   Right now I think of the gov and its minions of un-elected beuracrats that have INVADED every aspect of MY life while leaving the border unprotected as my enemy, not mexicans. We can send em back.

   The leftists are seperating us on every level and now were seeing the consequences.

   Comment by Mitch the Bitch — August 20, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

4. It’s not just “liberals” who say:

   if they don’t like and don’t agree with a law, they don’t have to follow it.

   Who else is saying it? Why, George W. Bush! So I agree, let’s round ‘em up and put ‘em in jail, starting with offender number 1! Or should that be numero uno?

   Comment by Rocky — August 20, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

5. Specifically, Rocky, (outside of impeding immigration law enforcement, which your esteemed former donkey prez didn’t enforce, either) what laws has he broken? Let’s have the proof, not the talking points rhetoric.

   He is a jackass wannabee and I feel no desire to defend him, and he has done exactly what he said he would do for the past 6-1/2 years, but exactly what other law or laws has he broken? And please don’t give me the tired tripe about stonewalling Congress. The “leaders” there (both donkey and jackass-wannabees) have overreached their authorities many times over but as far as I can see GW is following the Constitutional authority in plain language to a “T”.

   Comment by Carlos — August 20, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

6. Oh Carlos, that is too easy. Let’s start with the requirement, specifically spelled out in the Constitution, that the President obey the Constitution. Now, for 750 (seven hundred and fifty) more:

   Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

   For example:

   Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

   Bush’s signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

   No, this is not the plot for the latest episode of “24″ and Jack Bauer is not a real person.

   Don’t you find it odd that Bush can never admit he made a mistake? Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like what a dictator would — or on this case, would not — say?

   Ponder this right-wing lunacy:

   Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
   Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
   Date: August 3, 2007
   By Philip Atkinson

   President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

   Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

   The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

   When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

   This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

   The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

   The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

   As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

   By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

   However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

   When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

   Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

   If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

   He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

   President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

   Who says this? Family Security Matters, which boasts such right wing luminaries as Barbara Comstock, Monica Crowley, Frank Gaffney, Laura Ingraham and James Woolsey.

   And you wonder why the tom-foolery of immigration is the least of our worries.

   Comment by Rocky — August 20, 2007 @ 11:31 pm

7. Maryland is another sanctuary state. They issue illegal aliens drivers licenses.

   They even have special hours for those with problems meeting document requirements.

   Comment by Fred Fry — August 21, 2007 @ 6:15 am

8. That’s a great article, making some excellent points.

   “The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise.”

   In short, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

   Bill Clinton, popular. Why? Because he was busy banging his intern, while Enron execs were busy screwing investors. The mentality of cheating becomes white-washed and watered-down. Morality is relative. Party like it’s 1999.

   George Bush, unpopular. Why? “When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.”

   If he didn’t, what would Democrats be saying since 9/11? Do you think they’d be working together with Bush in perfect harmony? Or the right answer: Wouldn’t they be beating the drum that threat is imminent and America is kept vulnerable only because the President is weak? The goal is to create a political wedge, which means always criticizing.

   The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

   Rocky, if someone is holding a knife at your throat, better yet, yours and your family, and you’ve got a loaded gun in your pocket, would you shoot the villain, or take a wild gamble and try to talk him out (negotiate) of killing you and your loved one?

   Or try this one on: If a killer promises to murder your family, tells the world that he will do so, but no jail will hold him - do you take action or just wait until the day he surprises you and does the deed?

   The answer is clear and can be equally applied to terrorism.

   Because the knife isn’t under your neck yet, you prefer the luxury to criticize. To ignore lethal warnings is no different than to practice suicide.

   Comment by Samantha — August 21, 2007 @ 6:17 am

9. Thank you, Samantha.

   And Rocky, I asked for specifics not talking (screaming)points. I’m still waiting.

   BTW, cute way to mirror Caesar and GW. Problem is, I haven’t seen him kill 27 million Iraqis, nor have I seen him bring all those murdering thugs he calls a military home to declare himself prez-for-life. Maybe, just maybe, that fairy tale was meant as just that, and the military aren’t the murderous thugs you wish them to be. Maybe?

   Comment by Carlos — August 21, 2007 @ 7:59 am

10. In Caesar’s time, Rocky and his MoveOn.org script-writers would be busy grabbing their ankles.

    It’s no wonder they want to keep the world weak. Thumb-suckers and bed-wetters.

    What they fail to realize, though, is that America’s enemies will bring a far worse fate if successful. Saddam’s plastic shredder and rape rooms are just modern practice for a medieval mentality: Islamic terrorism.

    Comment by Benjamin — August 21, 2007 @ 8:10 am

11. Federal monies in all areas should be withdrawn immediately from all sanctuary cities. Let the individual cities figure it out when things go bad and no money is available for the sad, liberal programs. Attrition was a mentioned possibility to deal with employers hiring illegals. How about ‘attrition’ to those cities who just don’t care.

    Comment by John Houghton — August 21, 2007 @ 9:17 am

12. Sounds like a good plan.

    Comment by California Consservative — August 21, 2007 @ 9:51 am

13. Oh, but wait… there’s more insanity from the same rightwingnut:

    Mexico is now colonizing America and imposing its language and culture on it. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognize that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence embracing delusion instead. They pretend that their futile defense is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

    Of course, I thought that posting this wacko’s ramblings would wake up the conservatives who read and post here, to the fallacy of their arguments, but I clearly misunderestimated your… intelligence? …ability to read and comprehend? …common sense?

    Caesar was slaughtered by Roman Senators, and Rome descended into chaos. Eventually, the Roman Empire fell.

    While this is a vastly oversimplified summary, I dumbed it down so you all could understand the implications of what this wingnut Atkinson suggests. I fear I am engaging in an exercise in futility, however.

    Carlos, take a look at the article I reference, which is hardly a MoveOn or any other talking-point piece. Bush the Younger has repeatedly violated the Constitution and broken law after law. If you are too lazy to — or simply can’t — read the article, don’t blame me for not enumerating all 750 (and I’m sure there are more that the authors could not corroborate) violations here.

    Comment by Rocky — August 21, 2007 @ 11:17 am

14. Carlos, I would say it’s almost a certainty that Bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps on American citizens without the consent of the FISA court. Whether or not that can ever be proven is a different question, as the courts have held that only someone who has had their privacy invaded can bring this to court, and since this has been done totally in secret, those who have been violated will have no idea that it has happened.

    Samantha, your analogy seems a bit off. If the evildoer with the knife is supposed to somehow represent Iraq, the more accurate question would be “If you are pretty sure that a guy has a knife in his pocket, and you think there is some possibility that he might use it on your family, do you shoot him in the face first, then go looking for the knife?” Because, of course, that is exactly what we did in Iraq.

    Comment by BT — August 21, 2007 @ 12:24 pm

15. Rocky,

    I’m not too lazy (I read it) and yes, I can read. Matter of fact, I find it a wonder sometimes that many libs can read. Maybe it’s not reading, it’s comprehending? Ya think?

    As far as being “hardly a MoveOn or other talking-point piece”, I would have to say the Globe is not exactly a bastion of right-wing, conservative expression. Kinda like someone using articles from the JBS to support a point to a lib, I would say.

    And the point that really struck me was when the article said “In the opinion of many scholars…” Is that like “All reasonable scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans…”? So far, I’ve only read about GW “probably over-reaching” but haven’t seen where he flat-out broke any laws. If he has broken those laws, go make a citizen’s arrest! I’d certainly be curious to know the legal outcome based on evidence, not the blatherings of “scholars” or moonbats.

    Comment by Carlos — August 21, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

16. I’ll try again Carlos. Bush broke the law when, contrary to specific language in the FISA statute, he proceeded to eavesdrop on American citizens without the OK of a FISA court.

    I am neither a scholar nor a moonbat.

    Comment by BT — August 21, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

17. Excuse me, I am neither a scholar nor a moonbat, either, but it seems to me that the question of listening to conversations crossing international borders, because of changes in technologies, may not have been covered by FISA specifically because of the changes in technologies (and who started using those technologies to “spy” first? Billy Bub! But that was o.k. because no donkey would want to pry into the lives of citizens, now, would Hillarious?). The debate continues, but it is far from settled.

    That hardly seems to me to be a flat-out broken law. But I don’t get out much, I guess, and I’m certainly no lawyer (although I know a lot of lawyer jokes).

    And “eavesdropping” carries the connotation of targeting, in this case the citizenry in general. Hardly a thing a megolomaniacal dictator moonbats want GW to be would do as a matter of course.

    Comment by Carlos — August 21, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

18. I just have 2 or 3 questions for everybody. Yes or no

    Is their freedom worth fighting for?

    If yes, how much; Are you willing to kill an enemy by the thousands to keep your head attached to your gonads and the rest of your body to prevent another 9/11? and

    Are you wlling to use our military to the maximum extent possible, including nukes, if thats what it takes to vaporize Bin Laden?

    If not, why not?

    Or do you prefer the course of action both Bush and Clinton have followed?

    Just a simple yes or no, short answer. And please spare us another babbling on and on about about everything from Bush lied to Global warming. This is real simple, Are you ready and wlling to treat an enemy like an enemy or kiss his ass?

    Comment by T. A. Gray — August 21, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

19. Carlos, FISA had been updated numerous times, including AFTER 9/11. For instance, the time frame necessary to acquire a warrant AFTER eavesdropping on a party was increased from 24 hours to 72. Many Republican congressman offered to make virtually any change the Bush administration wanted after 9/11, and the administration declined, saying the law was sufficient. FISA was not technically outdated. The ONLY change that the Bush administration wanted that even comes close to that definition was on in which overseas calls routed through the US, not to US citizens, simply routed through the US, were declared off limits. Virtually everyone was on board with making that change. But, of course, that wasn’t enough. So now, thanks to the cowardice of the Dems in power now, Bush can spy on anyone he wants, as long as that paragon of justice Alberto G says it’s OK.

    Look, there is a reason the Bush administration doesn’t want people to know who they are spying on. Since the FISA court is secret, and has basically NEVER turned anyone down who could reasonably point to the fact they were targeting a terrorist, I have yet to hear a legit reason why they would need this power. Unless, of course, they were spying on people they weren’t supposed to be spying on. If you want Hillary Clinton or Obama to have that power, by all means, bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself that every President can always be trusted to only do the right thing. Because history certainly has proven that that case, no?

    Comment by BT — August 22, 2007 @ 6:14 am

20. T.A., if you think nukes would, in any way shape or form, make things BETTER, you are nuts. Killing a thousand terrorists, and million innocents, with a nuke, besides being morally reprehensible, would have the opposite effect of what you are trying to do. You would have created a million more martyrs for the jihadists to use to recruit a million more family members in the fight against the West.

    I don’t reject your tough guy stance on moral grounds. I reject it completely on strategic and tactical ones. Killing more of “them” BREEDS more of them.

    Comment by BT — August 22, 2007 @ 6:19 am

21. “…there is a reason the Bush [INSERT NAME HERE] administration doesn’t want people to know who they are spying on.”

    Yes, it’s called national security. Because if people KNOW they are being monitored, the act of spying becomes futile. Ineffective. Sort of like telling al-Qaeda our schedule for pulling military out of Iraq, giving them a date to plan for.

    The fact that critics are using homeland security, intelligence gathering, as a weapon against Bush shows the rampant level of BDS, putting personal politics above national interest.

    Personally, I’m not too worried about government tapping my calls. I’m not doing anything wrong. How about you?

    Those with reason to fear…bark the loudest.

    Comment by Brad — August 22, 2007 @ 6:20 am

22. “Killing more of ‘them’ BREEDS more of them.”

    Don’t tell that to the Japanese. Things have been pretty placid ever since…

    Comment by Shannon — August 22, 2007 @ 6:32 am

23. Brad, national security doesn’t enter into it in any way, shape or form. The FISA court is secret. We don’t even know who is on it. Asking FISA for a warrant after the fact is in NO way a security risk. NONE.

    That’s great you aren’t worried about the government tapping your phone. Perhaps you’d like the police stopping you in the streets asking you for your “papers”? Maybe you are OK with the Government searching your house whenever they feel like it? Hey, as long as you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to “hide”? For that matter, who actually needs the the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? I mean, they didn’t know anything about Al Queda when they wrote those silly amendments, right? Communist Russia had it right all along I guess.

    Comment by BT — August 22, 2007 @ 6:50 am

24. BT

    If its therefore, a matter if strategy and tactics, and you are unwilling to do whatever is necessary relative to the threat, you have lost any threat to your country.

    Doesn’t make a difference whether its an invasion of illegal immigration or Islamic extremism. On the one hand you face a cultural invasion that threatens the dilution of the language and the nation, on the other a very hostile threat to our moral, legal and cultural normality.

    And what we as nation are willing to do about it versus what must be done to preserve our way of life. There are times when harsh words and being tough are necessary, and I think we are way beyond that happening in both cases. We’ve lost over 7,000 now counting 9/11 and if we’d had the balls to nuke Tora Bora and everybody in it in the first place, I doubt we’d fiddle farting around with Iraq today, and we just might the undivided attention of the government of Mexico with regards to immigration.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — August 22, 2007 @ 8:21 am

25. BT, it’s quite a stretch going from “tapping” one’s phone (quite a stretch of definition, but that’s another discussion) to demanding papers at random on the streets, to random house searches.

    The Constitution does not prohibit searches, it only prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Seems to me if the “chatter” from a cell phone call that happens to route through the U.S. satellite system includes “red flag” words and phrases, or is from or to known terrorists, it would not be “unreasonable” to find out what is being discussed. If it’s Aunt Nettie’s laundry, I’m not real sure even the CIA would have an interest in pursuing that.

    And as far as FISA being 100% secret, how can you tell me a guvmint agency or operation, ANY guvmint agency or operation, is not subject to leaks given the track record of certain senators, representatives and their staffs?

    Comment by Carlos — August 22, 2007 @ 10:52 am

26. TA, I am saying that your idea that nuking the terrorists is the right thing to do, but we don’t have the balls to do it, is tactically as sound as Hitler invading Russia. It has nothing to do with the fact it’s morally reprehensible (which it is), and everything to do with the fact that it will be enormously counterproductive.

    Nuking Tora Bora would have killed OBL, and sent 5,000 terrorists to their graves. I am all for that. Unfortunately, it would have also created a rallying point for EVERY Muslim in the world, and would be the single greatest Al-Quada recruting tool ever used. If these people are not afraid to fly a plane into a building in order to get to their 72 virgins, what makes you think the fear of being obliterated in a nuclear attack would somehow get their attention?

    Lastly, I am unsure how blowing up a nuke in the middle east gets Mexico’s attention, since they are immigrating illegally, not murdering civilians, so I doubt they would fear the same retribution you would have us deal out to terrorist nations.

    Comment by BT — August 22, 2007 @ 11:00 am

27. BT, you either did not read or understand the full import of my first paragraph.

    So I’ll re write more clearly for you:
    ” If its therefore, a matter if strategy and tactics, and you are unwilling to do whatever is necessary RELATIVE TO THE THREAT, you have lost the fight of any threat to your country”.

    That doesnt mean blowing up a nuke in Mexico City. It DOES means acting in a way that lets the world know whatever we do, or say to defend or preserve our way of life, we mean business.

    Nuking Tora Bora itself will not dimish terrorists recruiting efforts, it sends a massage that we are not afraid of using all the might we possess in defense of freedom, that we’ll do the same to their training bases, there supply sources, and their population centers if necessary. The idea is not to change the mind set of a nut case. The idea is to influence the saner among them that no way are they going to be allowed to dominate, and threaten the world if we have anything to say or do about it.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — August 22, 2007 @ 12:40 pm

28. T.A. Gray: You’re being too nice. I’d have transformed Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan into asphalt parking lots 12 September 2001. But, I was a Soldier, not a diplomat. We didn’t screw around in WWII: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all got a good taste of American retribution. Seems we’re doing this one the hard way, so success will come a step at a time.

    Comment by SFC MAC — August 22, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

29. We are doing it the hard way because, with all respect to BT, we lack the will, moral rectitude, and resolve to excercise any strong option; whether because we don’t feel threatened enough, or because our thinking has been clouded by political correctness, moral relativism, or the false hopes and idealistic expectations of diplomacy.

    Whatever the reason, it has left us with a timidity and clear distaste for unambiguous action. As a result, our enemies view us, and correctly so, as weak, and corrupt.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — August 22, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

30. T.A., I DID read, and DID understand your post, but I either did not explain it well enough or you did not understand my response. I’m not suggesting that you were for nuking Mexico, I was simply saying that nuking Tora Bora would not necessarily serve as a lesson to EVERY country in the world for EVERY dispute we have with them.

    As for your point that our lack of a nuclear response to 2 countries that WE attacked is all due to political correctness, I respectfully and completely disagree. Certainly it’s POSSIBLE that nuking a middle eastern country could end up turning all their heads, but I think it’s far more likely to cause more problems than solve them.

    SFC, I guess I don’t really have to remind you that we are not at war with Syria or Iran. We were at war with Japan and Germany (who declared war on us).

    Comment by BT — August 23, 2007 @ 7:49 am

31. I think it would turn some heads, and for the better, and we wouldn’t have to do it but once at the right place.

    Its kind of like the hard nosed teachers those of us who were born during early 40’s can remember who could change the attitude of an entire classroom by disciplining one troublemaker.

    My point is, if our freedom and way of life is worth fighting for and defending against an enemy who has made no bones about his desire to bring us to our knees, then either its worth fighting for with all the force we have, or we dont deserve it.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — August 23, 2007 @ 9:26 am

32. I certainly agree with fighting for it with all the force we have, but I continue to believe that the remedies that you and SFC are recommending would be detrimental to our cause, not helpful.

    The War on Terror can’t be won on the battlefield because the other side won’t show up on the battlefield. Every terrorist we kill is a victory for our side. Unfortunately, every person we kill is a victory for their recruiters. To win this war, we will need Intelligence and cooperation from other governments. Nuking Afghanistan would net us neither, and in all likelihood leave us fighting alone.

    Comment by BT — August 23, 2007 @ 10:24 am

33. BT

    Comment by Carlos — August 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pm