Posted on 11/24/2006 6:46:08 PM PST by kristinn
I'm reading an astonishing number of comments on Free Republic these days by posters who have joined the ranks of the anti-American left in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some claim to have military experience, some claim to be patriotic Americans and some claim to be smarter than the rest.
These posters are joining the Murtha-Rangel-McDermott treason caucus. Oh, they say they love the troops, but their decision to abandon them in the field speaks otherwise.
Three years ago, the United States led an international coalition to rid the world of one of the worst regimes on the planet. Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist: He financed terrorism, he trained terrorists and he harbored terrorists. He waged war on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He waged war on the people of Iraq, including genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.
Saddam successfully subverted the Oil-for-Food program and was wearing down support for continuing the sanctions keeping him in check.
He had numerous contacts with al Qaeda over the years. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He maintained research capabilities to implement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as soon as the sanctions were lifted. There is evidence that some of these programs would have been operational within a year even with the sanctions in place.
The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.
Three-and-a-half years after Iraq and the world were liberated from Saddam and his terrorist regime, there are those on Free Republic who are clamoring to give up, surrender, cut and run, stab the troops in the back, betray the Iraqis, betray our allies in the GWOT, spit on the graves of our fallen heroes and join Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Ramsey Clark in bringing about America's defeat in the GWOT.
It's only been three-and-a-half years--only six months since the freely elected government in Iraq was formed. In that time, what has been called a mini-Marshall Plan of construction and reconstruction has come to fruition. The Iraqis have held three national elections, they have held numerous local elections, fourteen out of eighteen Iraq provinces are relatively peaceful and stable.
Six months ago, when the Iraqi government was formed, the experts said the war would be taken to Baghdad because our enemies in the region could not abide the example of a free, democratic society in the Middle East. For once, the experts were right. The battle of Baghdad has been a prolonged Tet Offensive style operation of headline-grabbing attacks intended to sap the morale of Americans and Iraqis alike.
From what I've been reading on Free Republic lately, a lot of Freepers have fallen for the enemy's ploy and are howling like barking moonbats for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some of that talk is couched in talk of 'we're fighting a PC war like Vietnam!' The soldiers I met in Iraq recently told Debra Argel Bastian to pass on a message to the Vietnam vets criticizing the war: With all due respect to your service, this is not Vietnam. It is not being fought like Vietnam. Please let us finish our mission.
But our enemy is playing the Vietnam ploy to great benefit. They know they can count on the American and world media to broadcast their propaganda. They work with leftist Americans to sabotage the war effort at home. They know these leftist Americans have allies in the Democratic party. They know they do not need a military victory--only political and psychological victories are needed to defeat America.
You guys are playing right in to their hands. Congratulations.
There are those who argue that murder and dictatorship is the mindset of the Middle East and that will not be changed by our actions. Funny how those who smugly denigrate the Arab peoples' capacity for freedom forget the wholesale slaughter of millions of Westerners by Westerners at the hands of Western dictatorships just a few generations past.
I hear complaints that the Iraqis aren't standing up. Yet, to use one common example, when police recruits are slaughtered in bombings, Iraqis line up the next day at the same recruiting center. The insurgency is small in number, but they are able to do enough damage on a daily basis to stretch out the time it will take to secure the whole of Iraq.
At this time of our testing, the American people are starting to go wobbly. Sadly, many Freepers are too. Our troops and their Commander-in-Chief are not, thank God. It's only been three-and-a-half years. The progress made has been phenomonal. Throw in the towel now, and you'll just have the terrorists follow us home. Everyone knows that, including you. I'm not willing to pay that price, not now, not ever, but you are.
Let me close by offering similar sentiments recently offered by two men 'in the know' on the situation in Iraq who are not giving up. First, Kurdish Regional Government Prime Minister Barzani: "When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn't return."
Next, Gen. Abizaid: "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."
I think a whole lot of the "The Iraqi people are incapable of democracy" bunch feel that way because they think that we are superior by nature to Arabs.
This shows how out of touch with reality the Bushies have become. I have consistently said "Muslims are not capable of democracy." I believe that Arabs are fully equal - as are all races. But when it comes to religion I freely confess my bigotry: I think Islam is inherently violent and oppressive.
The fact that you are performing some DUmmy hysterics is revealing: "Jibaholic says Muslims are incapable of democracy, but that really means he's racist against Arabs!"
I never said "Arabs" I said "Mulsims." I think all races are equal, but I freely confess my religious bigotry: Islam is a violent and oppressive religion. If the Iraqis secularize or embrace Christianity they will be perfectly capable of democracy.
The fact that you don't have any real arguments, and must instead lie about what other people say to make them look like racists is revealing. I guess you have internalized the left's great lesson.
Who said anything about an invasion of Iran? I certainly didn't. Read # 2012.
You are wrong about inspection and leaving Saddam in power! Even 20/20 hindsight doesn't make it.
Our troops are still in Iraq. We will deal with it, no ifs or buts, THESE ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND.
Whether the UN and the flip-flop liberal POV just before the war (inspection, containment, give Saddam more time, etc...) OR the liberal POV Before that (regime change, take Saddam out, the terrible WMDs, etc...) take your pick; they don't count now.
We simply have to untie our troops' hands and let them KILL the enemy whether in Iraq or Iran.
I think this will do it. I don't want to suggest a straight jacket again for your Pro-life Senators' comment.
Yes we would gain a lot of territory if we took out Syria, Iran and Iraq but over all we would be losing territory African territory such as Sudan is about to drop into an even more extremist Islam hands, the Philippines is a target and other far east countries. But those three countries are presently strong points and it would be a good thing to take them out.
At present we have around 10% of Islam population that has joined or lives by the Radical Islam. An air campaign would just bolster numbers I would think.
An Air campaign will only hit strategic targets it will not detour them if anything it would just create more extremist wouldn’t it jveritas?
No one who knows me.
Sudan is NOT about to drop into an even more extremist Islam hands It already did over 20 years ago!
What is going on in the Philippines has been going on as far as my Pilipino friend's grand parents remember. Maybe a change in "the cause and terrorist affiliations", that's it.
We obviously can't occupy 200 countries at once. The way to deal with the WoT is to deal strongly with the closest danger and steadily erode the terrorists' supportive systems and governments. Can you say the Bush Doctrine?
I did. Iran has an activity nuclear program that has to be stopped. And Iraq is making this tougher.
You are wrong about inspection and leaving Saddam in power! Even 20/20 hindsight doesn't make it.
Premise #1: Muslims are not capable of democracy
Premise #2: Saddam was trying to develop WMDs
Premise #2 is a good reason to invade. But premise #1 dictates that Iraq is best off with a dictator of some sort. Thus leave Saddam in power. It is too late now, but premise #1 still holds - get out now because democracy is a non-starter.
We simply have to untie our troops' hands and let them KILL the enemy whether in Iraq or Iran.
You are the first "stay the course" defender I've encountered in this thread to suggest this. Most of them oppose carpet bombing Iraq in favor more surgical operations that won't disrupt the emerging democracy. I personally think carpet bombing is immoral because Iraq is not a clear and present danger to us - although post Saddam the danger is certainly greater.
This is all so frightening. I really do pray that our President will have what it takes to do what is clearly necessary; and to do it N-O-W!
Is there any chance of this occurring?
Nancee
Be careful of your elitism couched as Christianity, Jib. Make sure you study Scripture first, and develop your political views around it rather than trying to conform the Word of God to your own politics and personal arrogance.
A word to the wise? Good day.
I freely confess to elitism in that Jesus is the only path to God. Is that wrong? If not, then what am I doing that is "elitist"?
They don't need our bombing to hate us. In addition, we won't be bombing civilians. In fact we'll be doing the young generation a favor.
What about if we leave them alone "not to create more extremists", will they leave us alone? Nope, will never happen and you know it plus a nuke would prevent us from stopping them and will help them erasing an American city or two in there quest of "Death To America".
So, which one do you prefer, Steve?
Great post!
What came across is arrogance, not the humility that comes from being a follower of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps you misspoke in the heat of 'battle,' (one often does around here).... but what you communicated was your own personal superiority to others who are equal under God and created in His image.
I will leave it up to you to decide if you meant what you really said last night.
Think about it.
I'm not calling for it. I'm merely recognizing it as ineviatble with the new Congress we've elected. Yes, it's a shameful stab in the back to our warriors--but it's going to happen, barring an American Pinochet.
I trust this President. He will not leave office before taking care of the big one; Iran.
Sudan will wither away and will not be a player to reckon with. They have a lot of internal problems and when they get hungry one day they'll collapse.
This is like worrying about Monte Carlo turning communist! LOL
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.