What part of TERRORIST TRAINING GROUND does the moron author NOT understand? His draft-dodging "hero" BJ Clinton set REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ as US policy. President Bush had the stones to do more than give the issue lip service.
Posted on 11/11/2006 12:33:46 PM PST by Clive
November 11, 2006 Many to blame for Iraq
By MICHAEL COREN
Another bloody casualty of the war in Iraq. This time it is a number of Republican politicians who have lost their jobs to a collective of Democrats intent on returning their country to the moral ambivalence and sheer political quagmire of Jimmy Carter.
As for Donald Rumsfeld, the only problem with his departure as U.S. Secretary of Defense was that it was far too late.
I'm proud to say that I opposed the war from its very beginning and also denounced the sanctions that were thrown at the Iraqi people. Unlike the current wave of George Bush-bashers, who seem to have only discovered Iraq when the Dixie Chicks told them where it was.
Afghanistan was a different matter, and was a simple case of retaliation against an aggressor and an act of self-defence. Thing is, the Western allies would have been far more successful in that country if so many American and British soldiers sent to Iraq had been used to destroy the Taliban and the other holy fascists.
The only solution to Iraq is to leave it. Not because of the leftists who oppose anything American and not because of those Muslim hypocrites who said nothing when Saddam was slaughtering his own people, but because it has nothing to do with the Western world.
Put at its most crude, if Arabs of one particular creed want to kill Arabs or another particular creed, we have no right to intervene. They have done so for millennia and will almost certainly do so again. We can pray that they won't and we should help the cause of peace and justice, but our place is here and not there.
Left to its own devices, Iraq will reach a natural equilibrium. Many innocent people will die but many innocent people are dying now. It's a tragedy but it's an inevitable one. We can no more stop it than we can halt the passing of the day.
Saddam Hussein should not have been supported in the first place, by the United States, the Soviets and their successors, Britain, France, Germany and almost every other major power. Also supported, we should not forget, by most of the Arab states and especially the Palestinians.
The greatest American president of the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower, showed us the way. He was a fine general who cared deeply about the lives of his men and because he had seen war he hated it. He warned of the military-industrial complex, he was a social conservative and he preferred to play golf than interfere in the country's affairs.
John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, insisted on playing with Marilyn Monroe as well as interfering with the country's affairs. He began genuine American involvement in other people's business, sent troops to Vietnam and handed a legacy that even the great Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan could not resist.
Yet the people who are most critical of George W. Bush are the very people who still look back with adoration on the liberal Kennedy and his interventionist policies. And liberalism is the key. There is nothing conservative about fruitless attempts to impose democracy, equality or enlightenment on other cultures.
We should want all people to be happy, but not necessarily happy according to our own definitions and expectations. Until we grow up and realize that, we will only spread chaos. Better to play golf.
-
Won't happen. The Shia are going to take over the country and they are no friend of AQ. They will instead, become a suburb of Iran and with all the problems that will create for the world.
The power struggle should last quite awhile.
Yo! Mikey! And were you prepared to invade Waziristan [Pakistan]in pursuit of UBL, with all those troops you would have saved by not invading Iraq? You know, the nuclear armed Pakistan? You know, with Iran to your rear?
Mr coren spends too much time looking in his rear view mirror.
Where did this article come from?
Really? I thought it was a slam dunk.
Silly me.
Not removing Saddam and not having sanctions = Iraqi WMDs within a relatively short time.
How did they determine that I voted against RINOs as a result of the war in Iraq?
Hey, where's your compassion, conservative?!
</sarcasm>
Good post. This isn't a pure left-right issue. There are Freepers who support the intervention and those who oppose it. I respect both positions but come out against keeping more than half of our ground forces (in-country, refitting or preparing to deploy) there indefinitely. We may need our Army and Marines for other contingencies. And it's not fair to the 1% of the U.S. population that is serving in the military and their families. Two tours is enough.
One sometimes has to sit back and look at the Art of Writing.
There are many points we can all agree on. But the underlying assumption is wrong.
So we end up scratching our heads and wondering, yeah, so what?
Huh?
Of course, the writer also thinks Ike was the greatest American President of the 20th century....
susie
Good Ole Clinton guys.
There is no comparison here. none. some want to make it that way. but its not the case.
What part of TERRORIST TRAINING GROUND does the moron author NOT understand? His draft-dodging "hero" BJ Clinton set REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ as US policy. President Bush had the stones to do more than give the issue lip service.
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.