Eagleburger's Wise Words (Time to take Kid Gloves off)

Don't forget the powerful 'American First' movement, headlined by the most popular man in America during the 1930s, Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was giving 'non-intervention' speeches until war was declared. Unity didn't emerge until after Pearl Harbor.

Yeah but the big difference was with the isolationists that they actually MEANT America First, i.e. George Washington. These liberals/communists we're dealing with today WANT America Last. They are ashamed America is strong and powerful. America Lasters is what they are.

The initial justification for going into Iraq was protecting ourselves from WMD's

WMD's is still the initial justification, but they will be hard to find. Saddam had JETS buried under the sand, he could easily had buried WMD's under the sand. As for introducing democracy in Iraq, it is part of the War on Terror. The War on Terror is a war of Ideologies as well a war of fighting, and we have to introduce our Western values to the Muslim world. It wont be easy, but must be done to protect ourselves. RETREAT is no option, because retreating will invite only more TERRORIST ATTACKS HERE!!!

You act as if one reason supercedes the previous reason.

The reality is that since 1998, per Congressional Resolution - the policy of the U.S. was to institute regime change in Iraq. That is a fact.

The second reality is that many countries, including the 15 on the U.N. Security Council, thought that the evidence was incontrovertible that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (he admitted he had some in the past, he used them in the past, and he never properly accounted for the destruction of everything he did have. ..).

So ... the U.S. kicked Saddam out of power.

NOW ... we have 2 choices - we cut and run, and let the Iraqi people "fix" their country themselves. This would mean that the strongest (and probably the most evil) group would come to power, and we would quickly be back where we were with Saddam in power.

So ... we must try to get the country "on its feet" so that it can sustain a government that respects the differences in religion, ethnicities, etc., without oppressing minorities, killing off people, etc. It is a dirty job, but one that is important. Think of the U.S. effort to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. Think of what happened after Germany wasn't rebuilt after WWI, and the nation as a whole was punished by heavy restitution requirements by France, et al after WWI ... things that led directly to WWII.

I am glad that we have adults in charge in the White House and at the Pentagon. They seem to be making careful decisions - and they are willing to "stay the course." If Clinton was in power ... we would have never gone to war with Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq would have a nasty WMD program with weapons given to terrorists, and we would be spending big time money on the "first responders" (firefighters, police, etc.), and rebuilding our cities, cleaning up after deployment of a biological weapon or a dirty nuke. All in all, the costs have been high, but the cost of doing nothing (like the Clinton policy) would be much higher.

Mike

"administration itself triggered the current uprising"

General Myers said the same thing in his Pentagon briefing with Rumsfeld. Myers said "they knew" they were stoking a fire and that they would get a reaction .. they just weren't sure exactly what the reaction would be.[paraphrase]

This tells me that they had several contingencies in place - the only surprise was Ramadi. And I agree that this was done to keep it from erupting after the handover on June 30. Myers didn't say those exact words, but he inferred this festering pocket of resistance could not wait.

I will agree with you on most of your comments. I do think however there is a difference between fighting terrorism and converting the world to democracy and freedom as Bush proclaimed in his press conference. It is not our destiny to do so as he stated. The example that our nation set as well as the English experience with democracy encouraged a large number of people to convert their objective in government to a democratic republic form. I do miss the point of the adults being in charge. If adults were in charge, the power of reason and persuasion would probably be utilized as much or more than the power of the gun. I think that it is remarkable that in the nineteenth century, war was ascertained to be a Democratic policy due to WW I. WW II, Korea, and Vietnam being started during Democrat administrations. War is usually the result of failed policies that lead to war.

It is unusual that the establishment Republicans have now picked up the mantle that the Dmocrats had and now claim it as their own. The nineteenth century was the all time century in number of vitims killed in warfare but we have made a terrific start toward a new record in the twentieth century which has barely started. I think if the adults are truly in charge, an atrempt to solve problems before they reach the conflict stage would be in order.

If this is war, then there is always, and this is just a fact, one way to win a war:

One side makes the other side not want to fight any more. One side exhausts and destroys systematically and to the roots the other sides ability to make war.

That's how you know you are done with fighting.

The key to winning war against Arabs is to attack their family members. In 1980 a 747 was hijacked by muslim extremists. The story is that the WH authorized the capture of the hijackers family members by CIA SF, amputation of digits, and the transport of those digits to the hijackers. The plane was released without a shot being fired.

I expect that Syria and Iran are about to find out that the price of poker is going to go up.

WMD's are getting to be a replacement for the space alien stories of the eighties. They will show up someday in some form. In fact the US is missing a bet for not following Saddaam's lead and burying our WMD's in Death Valley. The storage costs and maintenance would be so much cheaper in a good pile of sand. I'm also a little sceptical that the oceans that protected us in the early days of WW I and WW II is really that large an obstacle to terrorists. It seems that nineteen terrorists on 9/11 found it was not an obstacle. I take with a grain of salt quite a few of the reasons given for continued belligerence around the world. There are reasons for not being so confrontational to all.

I don't think we should be cowed by our enemies, if they insist on abusing us but I don't think we eliminate them by helping them create followers with our actions. For every family destroyed by loss of loved ones, we create the potential for another terrorist dedicated to avenging their loss. The loss of 3,000+ on 9/11 shows how the multiplier effect creates many more seeking revenge than the original families involved. Although it is seldom mentioned, several humantiarian associations have placed the civilians killed in Iraq with collateral damage as nearly 10,000. This is a huge number of bitter family members that hate us for our actions. The tragic part of the equation is that none of their countrymen were involved in 9/11, but their neighbor(Saudi Arabia) contributed fifteen and seems immune to criticism.

Nice DNC talking points, but you fail to see that Iraq supported terrorists such as Osama. As for creating followers they are created by not responding to the attacks, because the muslim world will think we are weak.

Maybe you have trouble remembering, but in Germany and Japan we killed millons of civilians, and that didnt incite those people to rise against us, it did the opposite as they surrendered in fear. The Muslim world respects power, and as we get tougher with them they too will cower in fear. It is inhumane to the people of the USA to show humanity to our enemies.

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.