The United States is at war; not with a nation or an army, not with a visible target, but with an idea: we are at war with Radical Islam. Osama and Al Qaeda have sworn to kill every American Infidel, and we are engaged against this threat all over the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Indonesia to Detroit, we fight each other. This war isn’t like any other, with civilized rules of engagement and fail safes. This is a full out no-holds-barred brawl, with winner take all and the loser condemned to a fate worse than death. But while we have sworn to destroy Radical Islam, and are actively engaged in fighting it, we have failed to apply one of the oldest and simplest rules of warfare: cut off the head and the body dies. Every nation, military, cooperation, group, and network has a head, and Radical Islam’s resides in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the biggest funders of Radical Islam and terrorist activities on the planet. Saudi billionaires routinely donate millions of dollars to Islamic “charities” which use the money to pay for suicide bombers and indoctrinate young men in religious institutions. Osama himself is a Saudi Millionaire who used his father’s fortune to create Al-Qaeda. The supermajority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi faith, which is the foundation on which the radicals wage their war, was largely founded and is largely based in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi clerics take young men into their religious institutions and indoctrinate them into hating the West and all Infidels. The House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, does nothing to curb terrorist financing or activities within their nation for fear of getting overthrown. President Bush stated “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor and fund them”. So why does the House of Saud get a free pass you ask? Because they have oil. We are dependent on Saudi oil, which keeps our cars running and our businesses prosperous. We buy their oil; the money goes to the Saudi Royal Family, which in turn either spends the money on themselves or gives it to the clerics that train the terrorists. In short, every time you fill up at the pump, you are, in part, paying for another suicide bomber. There are those in the House of Saud that recognize the danger of Radical Islam and work with us to eradicate it. They are few, however, compared to the other members of the family who either turn a blind eye or actively support the radical clerics. The King of Saudi Arabia has the unenviable job of being both America’s friend and champion of Islam. If he missteps, he’s removed by an Islamic Revolution.
Opponents of this policy point out that the United States is dependent on Saudi Arabia; if we force them to take a tough stand on terrorism, they could respond by cutting off our oil supply and ruining our economy. While I understand these people’s fears, I think they are hiding behind the oil argument rather than being forced to recognize the truth. We cannot let other nations threaten us when they overtly or covertly fund and train our enemies. It is time to apply President Bush’s assessment to the Saudis. We must make the House of Saud recognize the cancer that Radical Islam has become and how that cancer has taken hold of their country. We must stand by them to help eradicate the tumor before it destroys the body. We cannot bury our head in the sand any longer.
We must do all that is necessary to combat terrorism everywhere, even in and especially in Saudi Arabia. If we leave it untouched, the terrorists will just regroup, rearm, and retrain to attack us again. The only way to destroy Radical Islam once and for all is to cut off the head, and the head resides in Saudi Arabia.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Op Ed Questions
Joey
1) Yes
2) Yes but Joey also provides logical analysis and compelling personal stories to back up his point
3) He kinda does but it's clear that he doesn't much care for the liberal's point of view
4) It is very interesting
5) His paragraphs are very well structured
6) Each paragraph supports his thesis
7) His writing is blunt so yes it's clear
1) Yes
2) Yes but Joey also provides logical analysis and compelling personal stories to back up his point
3) He kinda does but it's clear that he doesn't much care for the liberal's point of view
4) It is very interesting
5) His paragraphs are very well structured
6) Each paragraph supports his thesis
7) His writing is blunt so yes it's clear
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Saudi Arabia Editorial rough draft
The United States is at war; not with a nation or an army, not with a visible target, but with an idea: we are at war with Radical Islam. Osama and Al Qaeda have sworn to kill every American Infidel, and we are engaged against this threat all over the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Indonesia to Detroit, we fight each other. This war isn’t like any other, with civilized rules of engagement and fail safes. This is a full out no-holds-barred brawl, with winner take all and the loser dying. But while we have sworn to destroy Radical Islam, and are actively engaged in fighting it, we have failed to apply one of the oldest and simplest rules of warfare: cut off the head and the body dies. Every military, cooperation, group, and network has a head, and Radical Islam’s resides in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the biggest funders of Radical Islam and terrorist activities on the planet. Saudi billionaires routinely donate millions of dollars to Islamic “charities” which use the money to pay for suicide bombers and indoctrinate young men in religious institutions. The Wahabi faith, which is the foundation on which the radicals wage their war, was largely founded and is largely based in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi clerics take young men into their religious institutions and indoctrinate them into hating the West and all Infidels. The House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, does nothing to curb terrorist financing or activities within their nation for fear of getting overthrown. President Bush stated “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor and fund them”. So why does the House of Saud get a free pass you ask? Because they have oil. We are dependent on Saudi oil, which keeps our cars running and our businesses prosperous. We buy their oil; the money goes to the Saudi Royal Family, which in turn gives it to the clerics that train the terrorists. In short, every time you fill up at the pump, you’re paying for another suicide bomber. There are those in the House of Saud that recognize the danger of Radical Islam and work with us to eradicate it. They are few, however, compared to the other members of the family who either turn a blind eye or actively support the radical clerics. The King of Saudi Arabia has the unenviable job of being both America’s friend and champion of Islam. If he missteps, he’s removed by an Islamic Revolution. We must do all that is necessary to combat terrorism everywhere, even in and especially in Saudi Arabia. If we leave it untouched, the terrorists will just regroup, rearm, and retrain to attack us again. The only way to destroy Radical Islam once and for all is to cut off the head, and the head resides in Saudi Arabia.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Editorial prewriting
1) We are so concerned over our own lives and meaningless things that we don't see the big picture. We don't care what's going on nationally or around the world as long as the caribou is still open and our cars are still running.
2)I think our generation in particular should wake up and realize that there is more to life then high school and we will soon be in the position of having to come up with the solutions to the problems that our parents are passing on to us.
3)To inform other students about a subject that normally no one would hear about.
4)-Evidence
-Logic
-historical examples
- foreshadowing
5)I will show the consequences of the result if we fail to act
6)It will educate them on a subject no one really cares about
2)I think our generation in particular should wake up and realize that there is more to life then high school and we will soon be in the position of having to come up with the solutions to the problems that our parents are passing on to us.
3)To inform other students about a subject that normally no one would hear about.
4)-Evidence
-Logic
-historical examples
- foreshadowing
5)I will show the consequences of the result if we fail to act
6)It will educate them on a subject no one really cares about
Monday, March 15, 2010
Iraq war final draft
The newest edition of Newsweek magazine has created quite a stir. Proclaiming “Victory at Last” on the cover with a subscript saying “The Emergence of a Democratic Iraq”, Newsweek has taken front and center attention by proclaiming the war in Iraq has been won. Even more interesting, however, is the picture of President Bush gracing the cover. With “Bush’s war” having a very low public appeal for most of his second term in office, it’s curious to me that Newsweek would choose him as their poster boy. Newsweek’s claims of victory have been echoed by the Wall Street Journal, but both have the same evidence backing them up. Citing the successful elections conducted a short time ago and the increased involvement and efficiency of the Iraqi security forces, Americans are starting to see the light at the end of a very dark and twisted tunnel. The beginnings of this conflict have their roots 8 long years ago, before the iphone and just as American Idol was starting. Most of us don’t remember that far back; what we thought of the war at the beginning or what we thought we were getting in to. When the War in Iraq is brought up, one of three things jump into people’s minds: “Bush Lied about them WMD’s” “I hate Bush” and finally “We should never have gone in the first place (see #1 and #2)”. We don’t remember the triumphs, the sacrifices, and the hard work that got us to “Victory at last”. Now that the war has been officially called in favor of the United States, I think it would be healthy for us if we took a step back and examined the war in its entirety. We will start with the invasion and the successes of our armed forces in reaching Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. We will then look at the middle years; what went right, what went wrong, success, failure, mistakes, triumphs, you get the drill. Finally we will look at the surge up to this point in time (I.E. March 2010). Throughout all of this, I will document people’s attitudes toward the war: what they thought in the beginning, what they thought in the middle, and what they think now. Ok; enough orientation and ground rules, let’s get started.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes introduced “shock and awe” into Baghdad, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). The resolution had a bipartisan consensus, with prominent Democrats and Republicans supporting the President. Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. This is where we made our second big mistake: we disbanded the Iraqi army on the notion that they had all been brainwashed by Saddam. We pink slipped hundreds of thousands of young men with military training and nothing else to their name. You see the problem don’t you? That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers and RPG’s. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world went up to the attic and dug up the old “we hate America” signs, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq so business and social work could finally begin. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge started to work. Under the capable leadership of General David Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia (an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of a continent full of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
The Iraq war started, as wars often do, over incompetence and misinformation. Back in 2002, the United States and several other nations became concerned over Iraq’s ability to field weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11 had only been a few short months prior, weapons of mass destruction were on the hot seat. It was here that the first mistake was made. President Bush decided to go to the UN about WMD concerns. The UN, as it is wont to do, deliberated and flip-flopped and listened to the French and a whole plethora of pointless deliberation over the problem before finally appointing a commission to look into the problem. The commission decided to send weapons inspectors into Iraq to find these weapons. Time goes by, the world gets impatient, and finally the inspectors come back saying they aren’t receiving cooperation. Hans Blix, the head honcho for the weapons inspectors, gets pushed around and bullied by Saddam so much that he returns to New York. That was enough for us. On the night of March 19, 2003, about half an hour after the first airstrikes introduced “shock and awe” into Baghdad, President Bush laid out the reasoning for war. “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” This was recorded in Time magazine on March 20, 2003. Congress stood by the President, giving him the green light with a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House (recorded by CNN on Oct. 11, 2002). The resolution had a bipartisan consensus, with prominent Democrats and Republicans supporting the President. Americans also stood by the President in the early days. Kyle, a college freshman, says “I supported the war because terrorism was a more recent threat back then, with 9/11 being only the year before, and it needed to be stopped”. Overall, 72% favored the war at the outset, according to an ABC and Washington Post poll. On the battlefield, our military cut through any Iraqi units that stood in our path and soon was in Baghdad. After a couple months, the nation was in our hands and Saddam had been captured. The first phase of the war was over as President Bush proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished” aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
You know the old adage “you broke it you bought it”? It works great for a broken lamp but takes a little patience in a broken country. The U.S. shot Iraq to hell killing the insurgents and looking for Saddam, and now it was time to fix it. And so began the long process of reconstruction. An interim government and constitution was approved and everything looked to be going pretty well. This is where we made our second big mistake: we disbanded the Iraqi army on the notion that they had all been brainwashed by Saddam. We pink slipped hundreds of thousands of young men with military training and nothing else to their name. You see the problem don’t you? That’s when Al Qaeda decided to cash in on the whole “Infidels on sacred Muslim soil; must destroy” bit and cranked up the suicide bombers and RPG’s. Over the next few years, the United States were engaged in a cage match with the Insurgency, soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Casualties started to mount, the world went up to the attic and dug up the old “we hate America” signs, and public approval plummeted. Bush went from popular to unpopular overnight, with the Democrats using this hostility to win back Congress in 2006. With each evening news cast leading off with more deaths in Iraq, the public wanted less and less to do with the nation. 2004-2007 were years of trial and frustration towards the war. Ryan, another college freshman attending the U of M, said “I was very opposed to the war at that time, especially before the counter-insurgency tactics implemented by petraeus. We didn't seem to be getting anywhere or have a plan for success". Casualties mounted, the insurgency seemed unstoppable, and we grew weary. We wanted out; the Democrats routinely stated “the war is lost”. Pressure mounted for the President to give up and pull up stakes. Clearly, something drastic needed to be done in order to save Iraq. The answer, however, was counter to everything we wanted our thought was needed: more troops.
In late 2007, President Bush announced that 20,000 additional troops were headed to Iraq. Their mission was to take Baghdad away from the terrorists once and for all and from there to create security zones throughout Iraq so business and social work could finally begin. The plan was met with dismay and disgust by the media and politicians. Parallels were drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, with commentators and “experts” saying it will never work and just bathe Iraq in more American and Iraqi blood. Then, a surprise: the surge started to work. Under the capable leadership of General David Patraeus, the influx of new troops turned the tide in the war and secured Baghdad. With the help of newly trained Iraqi security units, American forces pushed the terrorists out of province after province. Soon after, a scene of joy and disbelief as American forces turned over control of Baghdad (codenamed the “Green Zone”) to the Iraqis. Today, the war is drawing to a close. When asked what she thought of how the war is going now, Julia (an Eastview senior) said “Isn’t it over?”. American forces are quickly being replaced by Iraqi units, while the new Iraqi government holds elections with over 70% turnout rates. Terrorists try to disrupt these elections but fail at every turn. “The bombs no longer intimidate us” an Iraqi said during the latest election “When we hear the explosions, we defy them rather than cower from them” (recorded in the Wall Street Journal). Iraq is quickly turning what was once seen as a basket case into a governable free society. Iraqi courts, businesses, and government agencies are now open for business. The American presence is becoming less and less visible as Iraqi security units now shoulder much of the burden that our troops held for 7 years. This week’s Newsweek has proclaimed that victory has come at last. Others are taking up the call with joyous fervor. It seems that all there is left to do is offer congratulations. Congratulations Iraq. Congratulations American servicemen. Congratulations President Bush. Congratulations Iraqis who no longer fear terrorism. Iraq is now a free democracy in the center of a continent full of despotism and injustice. Congratulations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
