Posted on 02/04/2007 9:12:57 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
Talk about an excluded middle! Is there no tier available between an occupation involving a hundred thousand troops chasing around terrorists and getting blown up by terrorists in the middle of a civil war, and being "back on their heels, standing around?" If we are in Iraq to avoid "standing around" and to penetrate their domain, why Iraq? Why just Iraq? Why not the whole damn pie?
But I thought we weren't in Iraq to fight terrorism. I thought we were in Iraq to safeguard this great democracy that we've erected. Which is it?
If it doesn't, then the "war on terror" is nothing but a popularity contest and the lefties are right, we should focus all our efforts on trying to make everyone love us. Sign Kyoto, more foreign aid, submit to int'l courts, toss Israel overboard, etc.
Again, your hyperbole allows for no middle. We shouldn't go out of our way to make everyone love us. But neither should we go out of our way to make more people hate us. And that is about all Iraq is accomplishing.
I humbly beseech your apology for anything I say which is not documented and substantiated by anything other than common sense. It seems to irritate you.
Oh, there certainly is, but I asked you specifically "what do you want us to do instead of the former" and you said "the latter" (in essence). You didn't choose any of those other numerous middle options. Don't blame me for that.
If we are in Iraq to avoid "standing around" and to penetrate their domain, why Iraq? Why just Iraq? Why not the whole damn pie?
Why not Iraq? Where else? (But we're going in circles - you've already answered, your answer is "home")
And how can you complain now that we're not taking the "whole damn pie" when I asked you directly where you wanted our military to be, and you didn't say "whole damn pie", you said "landmarks".
Which is it?
But I thought we weren't in Iraq to fight terrorism. I thought we were in Iraq to safeguard this great democracy that we've erected. Which is it?
It's to safeguard the democracy, which will deny a terror haven (on the physical level) and a terror victory (on the moral level). Like I said.
You're the one complaining that this not only doesn't do enough to fight terrorism, it actually "increases" the "threat" of terrorism, according to your (baseless) estimations. Then I asked you where would you like the military to be instead of Iraq that they could better fight terrorism (because "fighting terrorism", at that point in your critique, seemed to be your #1 goal), and you said let's have them stationed home, on borders and airports and landmarks and whatnot. I have no idea how that constitutes "fighting terrorism" in your mind (sounds more like "waiting for terrorism"), but that's what you said.
So anyway, that's how we got to this point in the argument. Remember now?
You stated a truism in war:
"You are either actively chasing around terrorists killing them and getting blown up or you are back on your heels standing around."
War is 'the excluded middle':
If you are not taking ground physically and ideologically, you are losing it.
War cannot be conducted by half-measure and half-heartedly.
I know you wish it were different, and so do I, but what does a wish count for?
Ok - what do you know about Saddam's father's connection to the Third Right?
I believe that's what we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, leaving behind a vacuum that was quickly filled by Arab extremist-backed Taliban.
Are you sure? CNN, remember, now admits to submitting to Hussein's censorship in order to maintain access. Did we get reports that would suggest the 400 mass graves we have found? I don't remember seeing anything from the BBC in the 1990s about Hussein wiping out hundreds of people every so often.
You must have a different definition of "stability" than I do. What was going on that would routinely "require" the government to wipe out your entire neighborhood? If you think Saddam would let the international press report evidence of weakness in his regime, I think you are very trusting of the courage and tenacity of BBC, Guardian, et al.
Then perhaps stability in the Middle East isn't what we want. Perhaps we are better off when they are unstable and snapping at each other like dogs.
These were secret police executions out in the desert, tortures in prisons, etc.
I'm talking about sectarian wars, blowing up businesses and civilians every day and the lawlessness that we see and hear every hour.
Yes CNN played nice with Saddam but I don't think that the viciousness we see now wouldn't have leaked to the Internet through the Iranians and Turks.
.
Did we get reports that would suggest the 400 mass graves we have found?
These were secret police executions out in the desert, tortures in prisons, etc.
I'm talking about sectarian wars, blowing up businesses and civilians every day and the lawlessness that we see and hear every hour.
Yes CNN played nice with Saddam but I don't think that the viciousness we see now wouldn't have leaked to the Internet through the Iranians and Turks.
.
You may be right, but I don't know if we are or ever were in the position to place the required "benevolent strongman" into position. It just isn't one of our options.
I agree wholeheartedly.
That's reality. That's the nature of terrorism. Get used to it.
Thank you. You have just made my argument for me: our choices are fighting them there or the endless desperate, futile life on the defense, trying to prevent them from attacking us here.
The liberation of Iraq was one of the few things GWB has done RIGHT in his administration, despite the somewhat wimpy way its been fought.
If we had NOT taken out Saddam Hussein, and if we had simply liberated Afghanistan, I am certain that Hussein right now would be ramping up his military and funding and motivating all radical Muslim countries to confront the USA.
In fact, Hussein around 9/11 had already been seen as the one Muslim country who stood up to the mighty US, and thus had been granted Sultan status.
If still in power, Hussein would be threatening Saudi Arabia.
(Despite being two-faced, the Saudi Arabian government could be MUCH worst than it now is, let's face it).
If in power, Hussein would still be partnering with Syria, and radical elements of Turkey.
Who knows what mischief Hussein could be causing in Libya, or Egypt, or even Pakistan.
No, taking out Hussein might have cost a lot of American blood and treasure, but it was necessary in the long run.
The MidEast was a swamp of seething bacteria prior to 9/11, thanks to the inaction of the do-nothing Clinton puss-boy.
In 2007, by continuing to support the West-friendly factions in Iraq and elsewhere, the US is sending a message LOUD and CLEAR to all the radical Muslims: DONT TREAD ON ME - or your ass is grass.
Taking out Hussein was a necessary step in maintaining that important policy.
I agree 100% with you on that one.
"This administration simply has not been aggressive enough in facing down its critics and winning the argument in the press."
That's part of the problem with Bush White House P/R regarding Iraq, but the real downfall has been their willingness to engage in, and thereby give credibility to, moronic debates that detract from the mission.
There was no sense in surrendering to the notion that taking pictures of a bunch of Iraqi prisoners piled up naked was "torture." The second the liberals got Bush to surrender that ground they began to tie his hands in dealing with terrorists.
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.