Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: iconoclast

[['splain to us why the Bush administration took off after a toothless, secular, despot of a ruined semi-nation instead of pursuing bin Laden or extinguishing the Wahhabi root of the terrorist plague.]]

What type of argument is this that's needs countering ? You made statements of your rhetorical opinion, backed up with nothing.

The simple geo-political reality is that 'toothless, secular, despot' was not far from bribing his way out of sanctions. Once sanctions were removed, the ISG stated he could have resurrected his chemical and biological weapons programs in months. Just like the left, you avoid the fact that all Saddam had to do to avoid this war was to fully cooperate. You want to blame Bush, when you should be blaming Saddam. And with his hatred of the US, you would want to risk his handing such weapons over to terrorists ?

How would you have had us get Bin Laden ? Invade Pakistan ? The simple reality is there is nothing different that could have been done once Bin Laden crossed the Pakistan border. Yes, a mistake was made in the delay to allow negotiations when he was cornered at the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan. The fact that Bush got Musharraf to sign on to the War on Terror was a master stroke.

The Wahabbis ? How do you suggest dealing with them ? Bush probably does have the best way, not sticking your head in the sand, but the spread of freedom. Isolationism will not solve the problem. Wahabbism has to be dealt with carefully or you DO risk turning the whole sect against the US, and not just the radical extremists of that sect. Granted, there is a large segment of Wahabbis that qualify, but it is not possible to isolate that sect from all of Islam. Any visible attempt to do so will carry over negative influences with other sects.

Your problem is you believe 'conservatism' is the sole purview of paleocons. You represent only one 'sect' of conservatism. And just like the left wing fringe, you demonize any who do not agree with your school of conservative thought. True classical liberalism is actually on the conservative side of the spectrum. The foundational tenet of classical liberalism is individual freedom and liberty and is not afraid of change that preserves that foundation. Not the bastardized version claimed by today's left.

What I find interesting is the elitist intransigence displayed by the fringe right as well as the progressive left, and the need for demonization and the rhetoric of hate towards any who find their positions illogical when dealing with today's geo-political realities.


402 posted on 05/21/2005 9:32:05 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies ]


To: KMAJ2
How would you have had us get Bin Laden ? Invade Pakistan ? The simple reality is there is nothing different that could have been done once Bin Laden crossed the Pakistan border. Yes, a mistake was made in the delay to allow negotiations when he was cornered at the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan. The fact that Bush got Musharraf to sign on to the War on Terror was a master stroke.

It never ceases to amaze me that an apparently intelligent person like yourself can present pap like this with a straight face.

What kind of "war" is being waged when we lack the will to pursue our enemy? What kind of an undisputed world power, matched by no other, is cowed by a small, backward, half-civilized country?

423 posted on 05/23/2005 7:17:29 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies ]

To: KMAJ2
Isolationism will not solve the problem. Wahabbism has to be dealt with carefully or you DO risk turning the whole sect against the US, and not just the radical extremists of that sect.

Radical extremists of that sect? Are you implying that there are Wahabbis that are not radical extremists?

I can not, do not, presume to speak for all Paleos, but isolationism has no part in my objection to/bewilderment in the actions of the administration.

We were viciously, criminally attacked! This Paleo has never denied that response was appropriate, nay, demanded! The action in Afghanistan was, IMO, totally correct and effective in as far as it went. But, early on puzzling, evasive statements began to arise from Washington. "Islam is a religion of Peace", "they" hate us for our freedom, our democracy, our this, our that.

Who was "they"? Clearly "they" was bin Laden and his very radical Wahabbi instigators and their supporters. Instead of logically and aggressively pursuing these most obvious foes we suddenly became obsessively fearful of and reactive to an entirely different threat, i.e, very questionably existent WMD's in a nation that had NEVER seriously threatened the USA!

As the rationale for this totally irrational diversion from straightforward pursuit of the glaringly obvious foe morphed from WMD's to "destruction of an evil despot", to democracy for the Iraqis, to democracy for every beggar's son on the planet, the foes themselves have simply drifted off the radar screen!

You know who the enemy is as well as I do. Your denial, diversion, and inventions are almost as puzzling as our Commander in Chief's.

424 posted on 05/23/2005 8:33:11 AM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson