Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KDD
You left out one thing in your analysis.

Mutual Assured Destruction.

Their side wanted to die no more than our side did. The threat was real for both the Soviet Union and the United States. Cooler heads would tend to always prevail. That equation has changed.

We now face an enemy who wants to die for its cause. There is a big difference between a people willing to die for their cause and one wanting to do so. The inhibition of certain death is removed. Until you understand that simple concept you will not have a grasp that the nature of war has changed.

These radicals are rapidly seeking to escalate their abilities. They seek the means to strike from afar as we and our Soviet counterparts did. They gain more knowledge and ability everyday and even the best minds cannot agree on exactly how close they really are to achieving the technology needed to bypass even the best border security. The border patrol cannot stop a missile launched from Iran, or as is even more probable, Venezuela as a proxy. Yes our southern cities are with in range of such a launch and they have demonstrated this ability in Iran with their current inventory.

Paul's position is more than just about Iraq, it is an entire isolationist, non interventionist approach that in no way fits the realities of 21st security. We can argue the issues of Iraq until we pass out, but there are even bigger issues at stake here.

I grew up under the same threat you did, I studied it in college and debated it with many in my day. If you cannot realize the difference now I am sorry.

You call us wimps, so be it, but at least we are not fools.

36 posted on 09/19/2007 1:32:02 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: ejonesie22

Well said.

I can’t believe how many people are pretending you can negotiate with religious fanatics.

A religious fanatic by definition believes that by entering ‘negotiations’ with the implication of ‘compromise’ he’s committing a sin against his or her ‘God’.

bin Laden in the last two weeks just stated our only options are to ‘end democracy and convert to Islam’ (rough paraphrase).

I sincerely doubt any candidate, not even Ron Paul would go along with the Democracy part....he might be willing to kneel five times a day facing Mecca, however.

Not me. And because I say that plainly, according to the bin Laden’s of the world I have to be executed in the name of ‘Allah’.

I don’t understand how it is so many find this difficult to realize, and or admit.


37 posted on 09/19/2007 1:36:22 PM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson