VARMINT CONG ALERT!!!
REPEL BOARDERS!!!
Before dismissing it, please note that the website (http://www.bevin.de) also contains a heap of references backing up what the essay argues.
-All Terror, All the Time-- FR's links to NBC Warfare, Terror, and More...--
-Jihad! Across the World....--
-The Fire Down South...( Latin America--)--
REPEL BOARDERS!!!
It's nice to oppose something "on principle" but did you take the real world situation into account? Since we can't negotiate with terrorists, the only way to stop them is a painstaking system of eradication and making it clear to all countries that if they support (or turn a blind eye) to terrorist type activities, they will have a price to pay...
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
Neville Chamberlain
And after you finish reading that, then try to refute it on that thread.
Maybe short term. But in the long run, eliminating the harbors for vermin reduces their numbers. Driving them from their havens makes it easier to kill them.
There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.
There don't have to be. We declared war on terrorism, not al-Qaida. There are more terrorist organizations than bin Laden's.
Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.
So? We never said we would pursue terrorists only into those countries who live in mud huts. It's just as easy to bomb a brick building as a yurt. And a developed nation has much more to lose. It's what the military calls a "target-rich environment."
The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.
The threat Hitler posed to the US was tiny too. However, his threat to humanity was more than we could bear.
The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.
"Deplorable" by whose standards? We have installed regimes around the world that were friendly to American interests, and thereby prevented all-out war while still protecting ourselves. That isn't a particularly dismal record. And even if we've made mistakes, our record isn't as lamentable as that of the socialists and petty tyrants we've deposed.
There's never a Pinochet around when you need one.
1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.Nonsense. Terrorism has existed, and will continue to exist and flourish, in the absense of terrorism. Unless the bombing of that nightclub was a result of Australian agression.
Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry,More gibberish. If the Bush family wanted to steal middle east oil, we would have done so when we liberated Kuwait. We didn't, and we won't this time either.
2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.There are, however, proven links between Saddam and terrorism in general. There is a war against terror, not a war against just Al-Qaeda.
3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.Without getting into the accuracy of the assertion, I will point out that your argument basically is that if a tyrant provides a high standard of living for his people, it matters not what atrocities he commits or what international laws he flaunts. Nice moral high ground there.
4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course,I assume that when we get done with Iraq and then focus on North Korea, you will then be on board and not complaining about expanding US imperialism? One target at a time. When we dispatch Saddam, we will see if North Korea has gotten the message. And by the way, the time to take care of an emerging threat is when it is emerging, not after. Bill Clinton would have done well to realize this in his mishandling of North Korea.
5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.The Eastern European nations freed from the grip of the Soviet Bloc would disagree with you, as would the people of Grenada.
And one more thing.
 |
|---|
| ZOT!!!! |
Failing to confront a demonstrated tyrant with a history of violating his own people's human rights is equivalent to ignoring Kitty Genovese's cries for help. Failing to deal with a demonstrated threat to this country's welfare is to shirk our responsibilities to our people. Failing to enforce the conditions of the 1991 surrender terms is to piss away that victory. Failing to deal with foreign threats to our domestic tranquility is to surrender to petty tyrants and terrorists.
by Patrick Henry.
Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism