Posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:34 AM PDT by rob777
I strongly disagree with most of your points. But a true test is coming. The Russians have been released with a free hand in Iraq. We will see who's way is better. They will stop and nothing and will not be polite about what they want to find the murders of their people.
I meant no specific suggestions regarding what we should do instead of what we are doing in Iraq. As I read MNJohnnie's posts, that's what I took it to mean when he said the author offered no suggestions.
Of course I recognize that the author wanted another Ronald Reagan. So do all real conservatives, don't we?
To be fair, we had two options for waging war on terror...
1) Do as we are doing now, and liberate the Muslims from tyranny.
2) Genocide.
The enemy have chosen a genocidal war on the West. We have chosen to liberate the Middle East from the terrorists. Without a doubt, genocide is an attractive option sometimes when things look dark, and our soldiers who are taken prisoner are returned to us tortured and decapitated. At times like that, genocide looks real good. But we aren't like our enemy, and they view our reluctance to kill indiscriminately as a weakness.
Kind of like a strongman who can swing a sledgehammer viewing the carpenter as weak. But the carpenter can build a house... The strongman can, at best, knock down a couple of trees and build a lean-to.
OK, let me understand you.
1) Do you believe we are fighting radical ISLAM, or not?
(That's a STRATEGY question.)
2) Are you saying that if we do state that, we cannot help but have to invade the entire region?
(That's a TACTICAL question.)
I haven't seen any sign, so far, that Bush believes in Idols.
Nail squarely on head.
The same with "Bush in a bubble" =
It's the DC Bubble-heads of the cocktail circuit who hob-knob in the safety of their bubble, which includes their sycophant minions of the press- who haven't a clue what is going on outside their little pat-each-other on the back crowd, that is stuck on clueless. (And they are insulted that Bush and crowd don't "make the circuit" and avail themselves of the in-crowd's obvious superiority. The Bubble-heads think themselves so obviously superior to the rest of us plebians that they cannot conceive of someone who doesn't seek out their company. )
Ditto, they are incapable of thinking outside the box and still thinking in terms of pre-terrorist methods of war.
But it is classic lib/socialist handbook rules: accuse the 'enemy' of what you are actually doing, to deflect scrutiny.
I respectfully disagree.
The more successful we become in Iraq, the less inclined jihadists bent on harming us will choose that venue to confront us.
It took less than 48 hours for Zarqawi's replacment to step forward.
The enemy number in the millions and millions. And I'm not talking about armchair enemies. I'm talking about battlefield enemies.
Set aside the name of the current president and don't get all jacked up with your "neo isolationist" angle. The author isn't arguing against the Iraq war per. se., the point is that failing to define the enemy as it truly is, and believing that the application of liberty and freedom will bring us victory in a war is naive. It is Islam, not "terror" that is the enemy. The author's points with respect to that, are clear.
Leaving his wife for another wife. Having a girl friend while married.
Yes, yes, yes!!! This is spot on. Bushbots, to the rescue!
Obviously this guy has a double digit IQ.
Holy Freakin' Cow. I can't even highlight anything to add more to it. That is dead nuts on.
What no temper tantrum? I'm disappointed. Come on, give me a "waaaaah".
Ah, there we go. I knew you'd come through.
I was not aware of this...........I withdraw my support
Was Reagans open border plan for Mexico the plan of a genius?
Don't Believe it?
Read the last paragraph of L A times article
“Christendom and Islam have been bitter enemies since the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 A.D. In all that time, hardly a century has gone by without some major bloodletting between Christians and Muslims.”
Yes and these battles have been largely due to government sponsored religion. If you take the religion out of the government and leave it on the local level, the holy wars will end. Just think if Iran had the same Constitution as we did, and allowed freedom of religion, but did not feel the need to turn a blind eye when some nut case blew themselves up. If they took care of fundamentalism the way the U.S. took care of Eric Robert Rudolph, or Timothy McVeigh, there would be no war. There may be animosity, but I seriously doubt if the “Holy Church of the Sacred Sanity” would take up a collection to buy a gaggle of weapons to go to battle with “Team Osama”. Muslim governments sponsoring religion is what causes these wars. The U.S. isn’t winning because we are Christian based, we are winning because we are right, we are free, and we are promoting the individuality of mankind.
I was thinking the same thing! Actually, Johnny, your analysis is pretty good. Especially the guerrilla versus conventional playfield.
But your reply was only 10 minutes after original post. Did you have that at the ready?
Great slap-down ;o)
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.