Posted on 09/12/2005 7:06:48 AM PDT by dead
I suspect he is simply angry because of his last name which must often be a source of derision. :-0
In the end, we agreed that in all truly important spheres, the USA had been a benevolent superpower whose impact on the world was mostly positive and reassuring.
Kindly explain to me how the US attempting to bring the first two democracies to the middle-east (a regioun dominated by governments that do nothing but supress and steal from their subjects) is not impacting the world in a mostly positive and reassuring way.
I know a girl from Ireland. She was a big fan of Clinton, and hated Republicans in general.
I hadn't seen her in a number of years, but one night I found myself in a bar with her and her husband. I generally avoided talking politics with her in the past, and had no intention of bringing any of that up with her that night. But, she leaned over and asked me, "What do you think of Bush's actions in Iraq."
I tried to answer diplomatically, because I didn't feel like having a political argument with her. I basically told her my opinion that the Hussein regime was a blight on the region, and we could NEVER hope to have any moderation and democratization of those nations, if his regime was allowed to remain intact. Without removing the worst regimes in the region, we could never hope to remove the funding and infrastructure that allows fundamentalist islamic terrorists to project their limited power into other nations.
I expected her to blast me with a response, but all she said was, "I hope you're right. These muslim bastards aim to kill us all, and at least somebody is taking the threat seriously."
Some europeans get it, some don't. Either way, their opinion should be noted, but not catered to. They don't wait for our seal of approval when they march off to war.
First two democracies in the Arabic middle-east. I think the European hatred of America stems more from the increasingly growing anti-Semitism in Europe than it does our Iraq policy.
First two democracies in the Arabic middle-east. I think the European hatred of America stems more from the increasingly growing anti-Semitism in Europe than it does our Iraq policy.
I don't mean to say anything positive about Saddam or any middle-east regime (Israel excepted). Saddam was the only head of state in the world to praise the 911 hijackers. For that alone he forever deserves our enmity, but of course in addition there is so much more he's done to deserve it. There were good reasons to go into Iraq, as I've said many times on this forum.
But the backend cleanup is turning out to be problematic enough to scotch the whole effort. A bad outcome in Iraq -- a real possibility -- would hardly be "positive and reassuring" to the world community, especially if it's perceived within and without our borders that arms were taken up precipitously. When bullets fly and the outcome is in doubt, people are not "reassured." They are alarmed and uneasy.
I'm just becoming more uneasy than you are about the possibility of a negative outcome in Iraq. Iraqis in general are backward and tribal and not given to the democratic ideals we're foisting upon them and expect them to live up to. If the day after our forces leave, the country descends into civil war, with fundamentalists having a real shot at taking it over, every American life lost there will have been in vain. Are we now supposed to stay there for years and years just to prevent that from happening? That's the corner we've painted ourselves into.
It was an elective war, and if it damages one iota our ability to protect our interests in the world community, it will not have been worth it. Fukuyama is correct to state that there were alternatives to invasion. Some of them are beginning to look pretty good right about now.
Is this a joke?
This authors last name is advocating a criminal act with a mother!
This has to be a fake.
We spent nine years excercising those "alternatives." Only war was going to remove the regime. Everything else was delaying. And any deals to reinsert inspectors or such nonsense was going to result in a loosening of restrictions on the regime, which would have allowed him to rearm for the coming battle. It was always destined to end in war.
I'm not totally pessimistic on the outcome. I don't expect it to be Iowa over there anytime soon. But I'll settle for a relatively open government that does not provide safe harbor and funding to international terrorists.
And any cost-benefit analysis of our actions in Iraq has to include the effects the decision to go to war had on other nations, such as Libya, Syria, and Pakistan. They're not model citizens either, but they've shown marked improvement over the last three years.
I don't think we're on a two or three year plan over there in the Middle East. It took a few thousand years to get it this screwed up. A twenty year plan to straighten it out is not excessive. I don't see any quick fixes.
This authors last name is advocating a criminal act with a mother! This has to be a fake.
Goofy name or not, he’s a best-selling author of interesting buy quickly irrelevant books:
There is no morale problem in the military. The problem lies with our national elite, who shrink before the reality of an Arab world that is paranoid.
What bothers me is that such people are alienated from their own past. They cannot even understand what motivated the post-war generation of leaders.
IOW its a pen name of somebody who is a kookmonger
As for Fukuyama, he's pretty much in line with Mark Helprins views of this misadventure (see the Claremont Institure website and last Friday's OpinionJournal.com.) Jeffersonian Democracy in the Middle East? HA!
He never backed the Bush Doctrine in the first place. See reference #7 in this commentary:
Commentary Magazine September 2004
World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win - Norman Podhoretz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
Pompous words from the guy who predicted the end of history even as binLaden was sizing up the US through the lens of billy "bigboy jeans" clinton. Fukuyama has been more wrong in a shorter time than any other known pundit in the history of the world. The weaselly coalition approach to foreign policy has hardly been a marker of US foreign policy--except to mark its failures. Decisive action, unilateral or otherwise, is the only currency the world understands So yeah. Let's pay this academic hothouse mutant loser a lot of attention.
This is the 'brilliant intellectual' who wrote "The End of History." After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was nothing more that was going to happen, no wars, no conflicts. WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS IDIOT SAYS??
It was Fukuyama's end of history versus Huntington/Lewis Clash of Civilizations.
And post 9/11/01 we know who the visionaries were.
Which two?
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.