Posted on 05/20/2007 6:19:09 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
he idea that the party of Eisen-hower or Goldwater would have suspended habeas corpus indefinitely, as Bush has done for “enemy combatants”, would be unthinkable. The idea that they would have tried to occupy and rebuild an entire country in the Middle East is unimaginable. They were ferociously anticommunist, but also wary of direct engagement in foreign countries and deeply suspicious of all wars.
This kind of prudence and caution was once the hallmark of the middle of the country and its Midwestern American values. Paul reminded Americans of this past. He told them that the Republicans opposed the second world war, ended the Korean war and ended the Vietnam war. Why not the Iraq war? Why not indeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
“Abu Nidal was a secular leftist. He doesn’t help your argument on Islamic terrorism.”
You so completely miss the point it’s not worth arguing anymore.
It’s the TERRORISM-sponsorship stupid. Saddam sponsored, aided, funded, and assisted terrorists, of all stripes.
Including Al Qaeda.
I have given facts ad all you have is a vague assertion that maybe Bush hasnt had the political fortitude to make those same assertions. BFD, they still stand as reality. You havent even given a quote of Bush, so there is nothing for me to dispute wrt Bush.
fact: Saddam sponsored, aided, funded, harbored and trained terrorists from many different groups, including Al Qaeda.
“Again, with this myth that they are so far apart. These multiple terrorist groups have different agendas but a COMMON ENEMY ... which is us.”
“Yes, and Nazis and Soviets had a common enemy and cooperated before they slaughtered each other on the Eastern Front”
So then you MIGHT have a clue how the Saddam/Iraqi Intelligence - Al Qaeda agreement in 1996 to cooperate on weapons and so support eachothers goals, cited by the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden on the Kenyan bombings, has some analogy to the Ribbentrop Agreement of August 1939.... Yes, stuff like that does matter and does get people killed.
Thanks for the reply. I think you are right. Then the question becomes how much terror. We might tolerate small amounts here and there. Were they to increase the pressure, we might find it necessary to go to all out war. We are supposed to have all out war now, but for some reason our troops are being told by a general to fight fair and other troops are on trial. Can’t have it both ways. Either fight to win or get out before more troops come home sans arms, legs, half their brains, or physically whole but just mentally damaged. Keeping them there to be shot at and blown up or kidnapped while under the threat of murder charges should they pull the trigger is just wrong.
It’s the TERRORISM-sponsorship stupid. Saddam sponsored, aided, funded, and assisted terrorists, of all stripes.
Including Al Qaeda.
Funny that when Claire Sterling was following all this back in the 80s secular Arab terrorism was known to be an ally of the Soviet Union, who the Islamists were busy fighting in Afghanistan. I guess they didn't get your memo that all terrorism is the same.
What Richard Clarke had to say on impending al Qaeda terrorism and its relationship to Iraq in early 2001:
Ah! We are a fickle blame-America isolationist, now aren't we?
After all (as I would point out if I were a blame-America isolationist) it was Eisenhower who, shortly after entering office, reversed Truman's adamant refusal to agree to a British sponsored coup against the Iranian government of Mohammed Mosaddeq.
Since the current global Jihad identifying America (the "Great Satan") as a principal target originated with the Iranian Revolution (by which even Shia hating Sunni militants openly admit they were inspired) which revolution was itself a reaction to the Western, modernist governance of the Shah following Mosaddeq's removal, I would, if I were a blame-America isolationist, blame Eisenhower rather than absolve him.
You must have noticed, no doubt, that Roosevelt failed to oppose the joint Soviet and British action even though he was requested by Reza Shah Pavlevi to do so.
Roosevelt's actions spoke louder than his words (which he also delivered to the Shah).
You can sometimes end up with some strange de facto allies in a war.
As far as "terrorism" is concerned the Soviets were into that at the time. Later on, during the Afghan civil war following the Soviet withdrawal, you had terrorism vs. terrorism by a wide variety of groups, some Islamofascist, some dopers, some left over military groups, etc.
None of that is in dispute. The debated point was the assertion that Eisenhower was somehow involved.
Winners write history.
There were a lot of Arab terror groups during the Carter and Reagan years. Mainly they were marxist in orientation and often, though not always, working with the Soviet Union. Even one of the Irish terror groups had marxist ties, which is a bit of a surprise.
Claire Sterling’s book The Terror Network was a good source of information on terrorism of that era. Maybe a great source since it’s still hated by those who insist it was CIA propaganda, and it was published in the mod 80s.
The group that Osama derives from is the Egyptian Brotherhood and dates back to the late 1950s. It is radical Islam in nature. The Brotherhood is the movement that assassinated Anwar Sadat over the Camp David Peace Agreement. They are feared and hated by Arab leaders as much as they are by the West.
Steve Emerson was warning about this movement before 9-11. I believe he managed a personal interview with bin Laden in the wilds of Yemen for his book, which I think is American Jihad. He has a couple of books with similar names and I don’t recall which is his earliest. Well worth reading especially since he was writing before 9-11.
Ron Paul is a total wacko who would fit in with Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh.
Yep, he could, but the powers that be will not stand for it.
However, adhering to the Constitution, reducing the size and scope of government, lowering taxes, adopting a workable foreign policy, maintaining our national sovreignty, guarding our borders, getting us out of the United Nations, slowing the growth of inflation, and making decisions based on what is good for America, is ABSOLUTELY THE LAST THING THEY WANT NOW.
If we’re going to become an Empire, we better field the military to do it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you would be wrong!
The world is much smaller than it used to be and getting smaller all the time. Therefore, their isolationistis tendencies are unrealistic and dangerous.
I think you're right. I think we have elected (and allowed to be appointed) a government of American traitors.
Under this Bush almost-dictatorship, America will not survive unless he is removed from office, along with his globalist criminal buddies.
It is almost as if they are expecting a catastrophic emergency. The coup is almost complete.
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.