Posted on 11/11/2006 5:38:22 PM PST by FairOpinion
I think the long-term solution is to make the Middle East worthless by increasing the USA's energy independence. We should not have to court a region of the world that hates us for reasons real and imagined. Bush and the Pubbies should have been promoting such measures in lockstep with any Middle East wars of liberation.
I think the threat of redeploying our troops home might spur the Iraqis to seize their freedom if they truly want it.
Finally, I think the consequences of taking the perpetual thorn out of Iran's side (Iraq) may lead to a second Middle East war, and perhaps ought to. Iraq's "insurgency" is the stink, but Iran is the elephant it's coming from.
Thank you.
I like your tagline.
It sums up the problems we have with fighting a PC war against Islamofascism.
"Peace through strength" said Ronald Reagan. IMO there is no other way. The Smaller Army and Navy, Air Force isn't cutting it. Kinder gentler policies sure aren't. If they hit once make certain it's it only once. You don't have to nuke to level a nations capabilities to harm.
Maybe there are still some wolves standing between the mules and the water we're leading them to.
Terrorism only works because we let it work.
We guarantee terrorist safe haven, we guarantee terrorists a supply of arms, we guarantee terrorists access for their propanganda, and we guarantee terrorists the money to do all this.
If we destroyed any location where we knew terrorist existed, regardless of casualities... (terrorists in a mosque - BOOM!, terrorists in a hospital - BOOM!, terrorists in a day-care center - BOOM!)
If we ended all weapons shipments to any Muslim state/organization...
If we ended the right of free speech for any Muslim...
And if we confiscated any money any Muslim had worldwide...
... there would be no Muslim terrorism.
We've already led them to the water, but they refuse to drink.
And now the wolves are circling the weakening mule.
You just totally misrepresented what Condi said and meant.
No offense, but Reagan did pull troops out of Lebanon, and he bombed but did not invade Libya. I admit he had bigger fish to fry, but he exercised great restraint with the military.
I still remember that, in his debates with Gore, Bush disavowed "nation-building." He took a big gamble with the invasion of Iraq, and it is now time for the Iraqis and their Middle East brethern to reciprocate.
He was dealing with the Jews too, right (if I remember my Bible history)?
What the public supports is success. (though, in the initial week or two, there would be an outcry... but people get used to anything)
If my suggestion works... and terrorism ends in Iraq... and they successfully form a working nation, then our public will support it.
If it doesn't, then no, the public won't.
He cobbled a decent-sized [for the times] empire, and had to deal with quite a bunch of peoples, here and there. Yes, he mentioned in OT, IIRC as King Pul.
Okay...
That'll open up a lot of land for us to colonize.
Forty acres and a mule, anyone?
he mentioned= he was mentioned. Caffeine is needed - a lot of caffeine.
I remember hearing that one on TV. I also remember how quiet old Mommar got the years following. A bomb was dropped too close to his tent taking out one of his own family members. Lebanon was a mistake I agree there we should have flattened it just as we should have after 48 hours flattened Yemen. But even Bush could have acted against Yemen. It was just over 90 days after the COLE bombing he took office.
We need to abandon Ford era doctrines. Jerry Ford's E.O. of prohibition on covert assignation against foreign heads of state was a massive blunder that told the Hitler wannabees of the M.E. go ahead and support terrorism you won't die.
Terrorism works because it attacks the weak points in Democracy. That is the people. People are panicky, and always will be. As such Terrorism will always be a practical policy. Terrorism predates the liberal media, and it predates the current political climate in America too. I said in a previous post. [#239] “Terrorism is a fact of modern geopolitics. It's a fact because it works, no one wants to admit this but it's nevertheless true The IRA got what they wanted, so did the Algerians, the Israelis, and for the most part the Palestinians. It is a fact of modern geopolitics because it's as product of it. For terrorism to be defeated that reality needs to change.”
I still believe this, but I don't know how the system can be changed such that terrorism no longer becomes practical politically. Certainly a lot of what we take for granted will have to change.
I'm not as entirely sure of that as I once was. In any case they define what is success.
Actually, no.
Liberals would argue that you all are a bunch of fascist bullies who are killing too many innocents... and you'd most likely find them to be limp-wristed pantywaists.
Most of those arguing here are saying that you are a bunch of limp-wristed pantywaists that are far too concerned with saving the innocent Iraqi's... ...and that we need to institute a lot more warfare and less social work in Iraq.
See the difference?
To us, you are the Soros-like appeasers of Islam.
The X41 Retreads have taken over.
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.