Posted on 07/16/2005 9:00:34 AM PDT by CHARLITE
There would be a big price to the USA in doing so, but I can see lots of benefits too.
It is also doubtful that Congress would ever agree with me. :0)
"Where does the insistence
"War in Iraq is creating terrorists" come from?
Probably from the post 9-11 adage,
"Every time a left wing know nothing opens his or her mouth, ten people vote Republican.
While I agree with the general thrust of the column, I do disagree with Hitchen's statement. Yes, killing does not bother them much, but we must be aware of their goals, not just their methods. Their oft stated goal is clearly a greater Islamic empire. With Iran going hard line in the last "election", and with Saudi Arabia ever closer to falling, the goals are now quite achievable...that is if they can get the US out of Iraq before it stabilizes.
The wanton killing is simply to get the American people to demand a pullout, and at the same time to get the Iraqi people to lose any confidence they may have in the democratic process that is currently under way.
Just imaging an Islamic coalition of Syria-Iraq-Iran, with all of that oil and with Iranian nuclear capabilities. How long would it take Saudi Arabia to crumble?
But if Iraq is permitted to stabilize and defend itself, and if the US and other Western powers are able to keep a reasonable presence in the Middle Ease, that is the end of the Islamic empire. Iraq is the key.
Of course, the useful idiots here, the bottom of our gene pool, thought it made total sense and have been parroting it ever since.
Muslim logic.
Can you make such a hard and fast distinction? Without certain real world circumstances, deeply buried motives don't necessarily come to the surface. That's not to say that such circumstances are the reason or motive for the action either, but they are catalysts that work on individual psyches and bring out motives that otherwise might not have been acted upon.
From the Democrats, where else?
"If they had to level Baghdad to avoid a few American casualties, I personally wouldn't have had any problem with that."
It we had leveled Baghdad, then there would not have been any reason to plan anything for a future Iraq. The federal government of Iraq will reside in Baghdad for many very good reasons. You figure it out if you don't understand what has been planned for phase 2 through 3+. But surely you are entitled to your opinions. I wonder for those that take your approch in constantly speaking of "nuking" cities, etc., if you ever gave any thought as how quickly our nuclear arsenal would be diminished. Would you like to suggest how many thousands of cities, military facilites, etc., would have to be nuked for months on end to "sorta" accomplish what you and others somehow believe could be a solution? I am not holding you to an answer, nor trying to bash your sentiments, I assure you I am no lover of Islam, nor Arab mentalities. And my question is poised to all that take the nuke option whatever that really means, not one individual, not you personally.
bump
These homicidal maniac losers hated us with a strong desire for vengeance long before 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember there were five Al-Qaeda attacks on Americans resulting in substantial loss of life before the war.
That's the question that the libs and Big Media refuse to ask themselves. They should put both their tiny brain cells together and ask themselves: if Hussein hated Al-Qaeda and had no ties to it, why should all the Al-Qaeda bigshots care about Iraq? You would think that Bin-Laden would be happy to see Hussein in chains. Instead Bin-Laden and Zarqawi have made statements to the effect that the loss of Iraq will deal a major blow to Al-Qaeda and Islamo-fascism. Do the libs really think that if we withdrew from Iraq immediately, all the Al-Qaeda terrorists would withdraw also? They can't be that stupid...or can they?
Ping
Not that I am of the "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort them out" school, but we have tens of thousands of nukes, and could build more if needed. There aren't that many cities and military sites worth a nuke in the entire Muslim world.
At this point, Congress need take positive action. All they need to do is *not* cut off funding. President Bush isn't up for re-election and is free to do the right thing, as he sees it. It's what he was re-elected to do as Commander in Chief.
"Not that I am of the "Nuke 'em all, and let God sort them out" school, but we have tens of thousands of nukes, and could build more if needed. There aren't that many cities and military sites worth a nuke in the entire Muslim world."
I believe you are quite serious! But I think that is a sort of drastic measure. I guess we all have different view points on what constitutes wholesale murder. Millions of babies and little children go poof along with the Ali Babba and the ones that just sit on the sidelines for lack on whatever. Don't no how else to answer you El Gato. Not that you ask my opinion, you where simply stating your slight displeasure with the religion of peace. Sad the assholes don't realize they may have pissed enough folks off this time around and with their upcoming terrorist bombing plots to do things in Italy, Holland, and Canada, they may have stepped into a pile to deep to get out of this time.
Guess we shall see how Britain and some of Europe start to act over the next few months.
Keep your fingers off the button for a bit.
I heard this claim before the Invasion of Iraq. Most people I worked with liked the Invasion of Afghanistan, but most also didn't support the Iraq War.
They want a theocracy too. Ten commandments everywhere, make kids pray in school, throw homosexuals in prison or worse, same beliefs, same hatred.
"And as for the future plans for Iraq or its government: I don't really care - nor do I think it should be any of our business. Whatever happened to the Bush who said nation building wasn't going to be something he'd ever attempt?
My goals are strictly punitive and meant at most to set an example. How, (or if) our enemies ever pick up the pieces is their problem - not ours."
Good question. When GWB was running the first time, he did make comments to the effect he was not planning on nation building. I think we should try to be fair and very carefully examine the whole record/history of events 9/11 and post 9/11. The GWOT came pretty much in focus, though we obviously can list dozens of terrorist attacks both, ground,sea,air, prior to 9/11, that where against civilians in general, US interests, US military, etc..
How can we place in a few sentences an anwwer that requires carefully prepared reams of data/dialog to be displayed to approach what you brougth out as to how now we all should view what he said some six years back.
As for the "nuke solutions", many of us propose, I have gotten to the point, where it seems futile to address the ramifications involved in such a military action. I just seems like many of us speak on the fly, or often a very justified anger, and the nuclear option comes out because out of frustration, folks don't know what else to say, etc..
Surely we must respect all freepers opinions. So I'll leave it go at that.
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.