National Suicide I

Newsmax.com ^ | 12-15-03 | Alden, Diane

[SkyRat]

One out of how many? Where are the others? Free and well, I suppose.

[John W]

Please explain the logic behind "if you can't catch them all,don't catch any".

[SkyRat]

There is none.

But that's not the point. I'm sharing RLK's opinion:
-----
We are fighting at least three wars.

1) One against Mohammed and all his disciples.

2) One against international socialism.

3) One against internal political and economic deterioration at home that will leave us an oppressed politically correct third world nation.
-------

Catching Hussein won't help with 2 and 3. Since I assume that Saddam wasn't the only one supporting Mohammed, maybe even a small unimportant gear in a big machine, catching him won't have much impact on 1 either.

That's what I was trying to say. A Victory, yes, maybe a big one. But the end of our problems? I don't think so.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I can't shake the feeling that there is a lot of trouble ahead. Or to paraphrase an old chinese curse:" We live in interesting times"

[Phaedrus]

...I can't shake the feeling that there is a lot of trouble ahead.

Yeh, me too, a bad feeling in the gut. We're unmoored, our institutions are corrupt. We're going to learn self-reliance, and a lot of other stuff. Some sort of unforeseen "9/11-like" event will put us over the edge. Maybe 5, maybe 10 years, no more. My opinion. Hope I'm wrong.

[Lady Eileen]

bump...thanks for the post.

[RLK]

Hussein WAS, at a minimum, a financial supporter of "Mohammed and all his disciples".Or,do you disagree?

--------------------------------

That role has been exaggerated to rationalize reason for the war and create the image of a superpowerful boogieman who must be deposed. Anyone in a nation with a serious proportion of Islamic population is required to pay homage in some way to Islam, or he will be assassinated, as was Anwar Sadat. Saddam Hussein wasn't half of what he or Bush claimed he was. I have no use for Hussein. The world will be better off without him. But as the terrorist behind 9/11, which if anybody bothers to remember, is what this whole thing was supposed to be about, Hussein was small fry.

[rmlew]

We are fighting at least three wars.
1) One against Mohammed and all his disciples
We cannot win against 1 Billion Muslims spread from Morroco to Papua and Zanzibar to Almaty.
I understand the clash of civilizations rhetoric. However, just as the West is split, so too is the Muslim world.
i propose dividing them on ideological and ethnic grounds.

2) One against international socialism.
We gave up when the Soviet Union collapsed.

3) One against internal political and economic deterioration at home that will leave us an oppressed politically correct third world nation.
OK

Saddam Hussein has little to do with any of them. We are losing the three wars while people with high school pep rally mentalities cheer the capture of Hussein, who was little more than a local irrelevant chronic screw-up.
Ba'athis Iraq was a sponsor of Islamist terrorism. One down, 6 to go.
Defeating the regimes will not end the war, but terrorists are weak without state sponsors.

[SkyRat]

You raise interesting points. I've got not much time right now, but let me comment your last sentence

---

Defeating the regimes will not end the war, but terrorists are weak without state sponsors.

---

Are terrorists weak without state sponsors? I'm not sure. The idea that terror organisations or worse terror idelogies need a state sponsor sounds like an idea from the last century. In every war the ones who earned most were private cooperations or their CEO's.

There could be several men crazy or corrupt enough to "invest" into terror. After all money doesnt stink.