Posted on 05/24/2004 5:25:51 AM PDT by The Wizard
In that case, Schwartzkopf wasn't duped at all, just misrepresented. Shocker!
Wow, what a pansy. Either you're a pushover for the leftist defeatism at best, or a disingenuous leftist at worst.
But you HAVE identified yourself as a liberal before, haven't you?
I see the defeatist crowd is at it early today.
Yes, I've often wondered why some of them subject themselves to such humiliation day in and day out. It must be a paying job...surely an adult wouldn't do this as a hobby.
Zinni sold his soul and ran full speed into the bosom of the fifth column called 60 minutes.
Though we hardly ever agree with each other on anyother topic ... we are in complete agreement here ....
Hmmmm. They don't believe that anything the President does is newsworthy -- so they should not have to carry it? That's not the way this thing works.
surely an adult wouldn't do this as a hobby.
Agree.
Zinni sold his soul and ran full speed into the bosom of the fifth column called 60 minutes.
This thread brings into sharp focus the futility of relying on anything even remotely similar than the Geneva Conventions.
All it accomplishes is to allow those so inclined to parse words to no positive purpose. And it enables treason and sedition big time due to its major weakness: there is no, I emphasize, NO enforcement mechanism. Zero zilch nada none. The grossest violators of the conventions have been historically the most egregious mass killers, or the most powerful armies in the conflicts.
In the case of the historical mass killings ( Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea) the world stood by for a variety of reasons (Powerlessness, Inability, timidity, fear, financial inconvenience, Political Correctness), and the conventions were meaningless. In all other conflicts the only States accused of violations have been the ones inclined not to adopt as universal policy the very atrocities that the conventions are intended to prevent .
Unintended consequences. It is clear that the conventions simply enable the very atrocities that it was meant to prevent. The logical move is to eliminate these useless conventions altogether and fight wars as a last resort, by any means necessary. Ironically, the ultimate result may be fewer total deaths of the truly innocent in future conflicts. And as a side benefit, there would be no future distractions in the speedy conclusions of future wars.
WP, I said good-bye to my son at the airport yesterday morning. By this time next month he'll be in Iraq for the 2nd time. He is not a starry-eyed empty head, and has expressed criticism of Rummy on a number of different issues. That having been said, he told me not to worry, that the main thing the enemy has going for them is the extraordinary negativity of the the US press and their uncritical camp followers. I have to wonder if he was talking about you.
Maybe General Zinni, General Shinseki and former SecNav Webb are the uncritical camp followers he meant.
The thing is that it is the -president- who has some uncritcal camp followers. We see that just from this thread.
Walt
Of course, 'uncritical' in your lexicon means 'failing to agree with you.'
Sorry Wizard. :-)
How would you have managed it?. Exactly what would you have done, that would be reasonably calculated to lead to a better outcome? Speaking in generalities isn't really very helpful in moving the debate in a constructive direction, as I am sure you will agree.
Also, don't you think there is great value in the US having removed a terrible mass murdering tyrant in and of itself, irrespective of whether or not the books balance looking solely at the real politik balance sheet? I think it is the duty of the US as the lone hyperpower, to do good, as well as simply doing well.
In any event think of Iraq as the purchase of a deep out of the money stock option. If the underlying stock price rises substantially, you will make a bundle. Here the payoff is if Iraq can really be made into a civil society subject to the rule of law, with some semblance of some democratic norms. The odds are against that of course, but if it happens, the returns will be HUGE. It will portend the end of the long nightmare of the seemingly unending dark ages of the Arab world. Bush will get his face chiseled on Mt Rushmore.
And there you have it.
Iraq was the right target---and I got news for you. It ain't over with Iraq. So pack up Gen. Zinni and STOP KILLING OUR BOYS by undercutting the war effort. In WW II, you would have been arrested as a fifth columnist.
LS: "Bush is the greatest war president since Abraham Lincoln." Now put that in your fifth column pipe and smoke it.
Love it.
I just have to ask: Which came first, your hatred of "Dubya", or your disagreement with his Iraq policy?
I fired off letters to let them know I won't watch their station again. Not that I do now, but they don't know it. ;-)
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.