.
I gather you would subscribe to the Putin/Chechnya/ Fuel-Air explosives solution?
Posted on 07/26/2004 6:12:00 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter
It's too soon to judge. History will tell.
.
I gather you would subscribe to the Putin/Chechnya/ Fuel-Air explosives solution?
Thanks for the referral.
What is the premise of this book?
We should have used them in Fallujah.
I wish there was a way I could edit my orginal post from:
"if GW2 was just about WMDs & Saddam, then no, it was not worth it."
to:
" if GW2 was just about WMDs & Saddam, then perhaps it was not worth it."
I'm not familiar with the "Putin/Chechnya/Fuel-Air explosives solution"
I certainly don't subscribe to the "welfare for America's enemies" solution
.
.
Good Link
.
.
It's similar to turning back the clock on iraq to about 2000 B.C.
Mae West purportedly went to a county fair, and for a photo-op, agreed to milk a cow. Her fingernails were a little long, so the cow soon became uninfatuated with her attention and kicked her in the head. She fell, momentarily unconscious.
When she woke up, she was laying under the cows udder, four big teats staring down at her.
"One at a time, boys," she said.
Well, to Iran, Syria, and a few more middle eastern unsats--the message may well be: "one at a time, boys; don't be impatient."
Also, there's the vaudeville story about the old bull and the young bull looking down together from a ridge at a herd of cows. The young bull says "C'mon, let's run on down and screw them all." The old bull replies, "no, let's just walk on down and screw them one at a time."
Iraq may not have been a total masterpiece of power projection, but it was actually rather good. Certainly good enough to give the rest of the islamist herd pause to wonder who might be next.
Thanks for the link.
I'll get back to you after I read it.
Here is an article on the book:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Yes, fighting and winning in Iraq is WELL WORTH IT. No question. We have done many things to help us win the war on terror and make the US safe:
1. We have indeed removed a threat. Saddam's links to
terrorism are legion. 9/11 commission reports that Saddam offered Bin Laden sanctuary in 1998. had bin laden
2. the threat did extend to WMD programs as well. Even though we didnt find sotckpiles, the technology, desire and effort was there.
3. Saddam was a brutal dictator. removing him and creating democracy in Iraq is a new model for the Middle East, that will turn that culture away from Wahhabist extremism.
4. The 'flypaper' effect of bringing terrorists into Iraq makes life hard in the short-term but is a long-term positive. Now Iraqis themselves have witnessed and suffered an equivalent of 9/11; now they know that Bush's 'are you with us or against us' was no threat, but an accurate description of what the fight against terrorism requires.
Many Iraqis may not want to be in that fight, but they dont want terrorism.
5. By replacing dictatorship with democracy, we are showing the positive sideof American intervention.
6. We are dramatically improving the lives of Iraqis who lived under repression and dictatorship. We have let the mas graves get reopened and have brought the killer of countless Iraqis - Saddam Hussein - come to justice.
If you doubt it, go to these links:
My blog on liberating Iraq
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
John Alt on answering Qs on Iraq:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/04/troops.html
Iraq the Model - the best Iraqi blog:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
That is not the calculus. (It can't be.) If one were to measure honestly 'most immediate threat' one would probably come up with China and its nukes pointed at the US.
You can't just calculate 'most immediate threat' and then whoever comes up, say That's who we should attack. You are also limited by what is feasible.
Iraq's position w/r to UN resolutions, and the fact that we were already patrolling (at times bombarding) its territory, made it the most feasible next target.
and if we are to agree that the use of military force was the appropriate response, then we must also consider the merits of our government's actions since the president announced that the major hostilities were over.
Our government's actions (in for example Fallujah) certainly can be criticized, but this would in no way discredit the initial decision to invade Iraq.
In my way of thinking, if iraq is our enemy, we should destroy them
"Iraq" qua Iraq is not and never was our enemy. The Hussein regime which exerted autocratic control over Iraq, clearly was. That regime has been destroyed.
"Rebuilding" iraq is a waste of money. Trying to win the hearts and minds of the iraqi people is a waste of time. I compare this exercise in futility to the failed "great society" programs.
We do these things not to build a "great society" in Iraq or even because we care about the people of Iraq. We do them to prevent Iraq from descending into either a lawless failed state, where terrorists can enjoy unfettered haven (like Afghanistan was), or another dictatorship run by an ambitious murderer who uses terrorism as a geopolitical tool (like Saddam was).
NOT to try to prevent this would be truly idiotic.
But I really am not yet convinced that Me and my way of life would be much different today, if we had simply turned back the clock on iraq to about 2000 B.C.
I don't know what that means. It seems to be devoid of meaning. To the extent I understand it, you're advocating a "benign indifference" towards Iraq.
This would not, as you seem to think, "turn back the clock to 2000 B.C." in Iraq. A terrorist-supporting strongman would take over, or it would descend into warring principalities where terrorist camps could thrive - something along those lines. This would not turn back the clock to 2000 B.C. but, rather, to 9/11/2001.
I appreciate your points.
We disagree.
Well, no we're not.
We're building enduring bases here. Let's not forget...the U.S. still has bases in Germany and in Japan.
If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq anytime soon, Iran will be in here stirring it up so fast it'll make your head swim.
And yeah, it's worth it. The media DOES NOT report the positives in Iraq. The positives far outweigh the negatives. The vast majority of Iraqis WANT us to stay and are delighted that Saddam has been removed. When we see CNN, ad nauseum on the TV in the chow hall, we do not recognize that place called "Iraq" they are talking about. It bears little resemblance to the place I see all around me.
Bump again
'bout what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.