Posted on 04/24/2008 3:26:14 PM PDT by RadioCirca1970
Quite a few years ago, George Will wrote an op-ed (It was in the back of a news magazine, US News I think) where he mentioned that he thought the Middle East was a mess and the best you can do with a mess is contain it.
This article was prior to 9/11.
My thinking is that 9/11 proved the mess wasn’t contained and a different approach is needed. Hence the invasion of Iraq.
I mention this as a prelude to getting back to your Ataturk argument, in that someone has to step up and be the personality that leads a country forward.
I seem to vaguely remember that Ataturk was educated by the British. I suspect this education helped when it came time for someone to step up and lead Turkey away from an oppressive theocratic form of government.
However, I would also argue that Ataturk was in the right place at the right time. He was able to accomplish great things for Turkey, but only because conditions were right at the time.
With Iraq, I think the conditions are being created for someone like an Ataturk to step up. Is there someone who can take advantage to lead Iraq forward? Only time will tell.
I think a lot of people need to consider, with this election, is judges. I think McCain will nominate conservative judges. The impact of judicial activist judges cannot be understated.
McCain is full of crap. More of his strategy of running against the Republican Party.
Urinate on his friends and allies while kissing up to the left.
What makes it all the more sickening is that he is lying and/or wrong about who is responsible for the NO debacle. What a puke.
I don’t vote for people that spit in my eye.
We'll soon know who McCain's going to pick for VP; win or lose, that person is going to be catapulted into a potential early front-runner position to be the next Republican nominee. I sure hope it isn't somebody lame like Huckabee, or somebody who really couldn't get nominated in his own right like Romney, or even worse (for a thousand reasons), Lindsey Graham.
If McCain fails to do what GWB also failed at, which is find a great conservative to take over for the future, then I say, pull the trigger now. Besides, I don't think a McCain presidency is going to do good things for us in retaking Congress, and we are especially going to need rock-ribbed conservatives there if we're going to avoid the most liberal parts of a McCain agenda. I don't worry as much in asking Republicans to oppose Clinton or Obama's socialism. We dodged a big bullet on shamnesty this last year, we probably won't be so lucky during a McCain presidency.
Don't get me wrong, I don't despise John McCain anywhere near as much as I do either Democrat, I just remember surviving Bubba by having conservatives figure out quickly who they were early on in his first term. We now have the power of the Internet, and the way things are going, either Barry O or the Hildebeest are going to have an extremely tough time governing, if they have already lost the support and trust of both the Republicans and the faction they had to alienate in order to get the nomination.
We dealt with Harriet Miers and shamnesty by the power of the Internet, and since the last DemonRat SCOTUS appointee happened before most folks were online, we can 'bork' Clinton/Obama nominees. Remember that the libs had the same Internet, and were not able to stop Roberts or Alito. We're much better at the game than they are.
Keep it up, this is one of the few debates I’ve had that didn’t devolve into “you’re just a big poopy head and mean, too.”
Well, there are certainly times my lady thinks that about me, but we still get along! I also appreciate a great exchange of factually informed opinion, I've been a FReeper for ten years, and I learn just as much here now as I ever did.
The mess wasn't contained during the Clinton years, he didn't learn squat from the first attempted bombing of the WTC, and didn't put the necessary safeguards in place to prevent 9/11. The terrorists were already long on our soil by the time GWB took the oath of office. The biggest mistake we've made is to not keep our focus on the problem, we scattergun our resources in an effort to be PC, instead of targeting mainly those who really have it in for us. It's been over six full years since 9/11, there is no reason NOT to have a "trusted traveler" program with biometric links to a high-tech ID card for people who only want to get to their next business meeting in a reasonable amount of time. Let the "once every five years" flier get the scrutiny, and make sure that we know where the Muslims are when they prepare to board.
Besides, it is now impossible to use a commercial aircraft as a weapon with the safeguards now in place. A terrorist might be able to kill everybody on a plane, but they will never again be given access to a cockpit under any circumstances. I'd rather we figure out how to stop the next John Allen Mohammad from terrorizing major metropolitan areas. The only thing that tripped up the D.C. sniper and his evil sidekick is that they wanted ransom money. If they had a large amount of funds, and a political agenda, they'd have probably gone on for months with their killing spree, crippling the entire capital metropolis. A dozen or so such teams could shut down the major pulse points of our whole economy.
I, too, was for the invasion of Iraq. But I was out there in "make Baghdad a glass parking lot" territory, you don't begin rebuilding until you've completely broken the will of your enemy. The same goes for Afghanistan, the fact that insurgents were able to get within a few hundred yards of Karzai just yesterday means that we have not broken the will of the Taliban enemy. If we really had the guts to win in Afghanistan, we'd have carpet-bombed the so-called tribal areas of western Pakistan.
However, I would also argue that Ataturk was in the right place at the right time. He was able to accomplish great things for Turkey, but only because conditions were right at the time.
Great men make their own "right times". That's why I use the example of George Washington. He could have been the first king of the United States, but he accepted instead a unanimous vote of his peers to be the first President of the land that his efforts secured from the grip of tyranny. The squabbling Iraqi "leaders" are just trying to keep the US dollars flowing while they salt bribes away in Swiss bank accounts. They are not willing to put on the line their lives, their fortunes, or their sacred honor (if they had any).
With Iraq, I think the conditions are being created for someone like an Ataturk to step up. Is there someone who can take advantage to lead Iraq forward? Only time will tell.
You are way more optimistic than I am in this regard. We waited for a courageous leader to seize the reins in South Vietnam, and all we got was corruption. We sacrificed our own future for the possibility of freedom for only a part of the Vietnamese. We were saddled with liberalism by people who were first turned off by the war, then ended up buying the whole liberal package that came with it. I'd truly hate to see that happen again. The fact that Clinton and Obama have raised enormous sums of money for campaigning tells me that it might already have happened.
I think a lot of people need to consider, with this election, is judges. I think McCain will nominate conservative judges. The impact of judicial activist judges cannot be understated.
Agreed, but on the SCOTUS, who's the oldest and most infirm? Ginsberg's had her health problems, and Stevens is really getting up there. The conservative votes on the Court are still relatively hale and hearty. I just think about what Souter (GHWB's biggest mistake) said today about simply requiring a photo ID to vote, and I remember that simply having a Republican as President does not guarantee we won't get liberal Justices.
John McCain has attached his name to legislation with some of the most heinous Democrats to ever sit in the US Senate, I'd shudder to think about his 'need' to compromise if he had to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. It would be very hard to get Republicans to 'bork' their own President's nominee, we'd need to nip things in the bud the way we did with Miers. I'd much rather ask solid Republican Senators to vigorously oppose the libs that Obama or Clinton would send up to the Hill.
Sorry I’m so late back to this, just haven’t had the time to think about any of your points.
To boil things down, I think we’re both agreed that we have serious problems with the candidates the GOP is running. We do differ when it comes to Iraq as I think we’re finally on the right track.
However, though, I have to give you credit when you remain a bit more cynical about the politicians in Iraq. That is a valid point and the Iraqi politicians should be viewed with a healthy skepticism. Of course, that’s why I’m saying 4 years and out (though, the actual timeline is closer to 18 months) because that’s how much longer I think it will take to see if things are actually headed in the right direction.
No matter what, unless the GOP starts running some true conservatives, they’ll lose more and more votes. Heck, I’m on that list.
By the way, if you want to read an interesting book, try Senator Coburn’s “Breach of Trust.” He flat out says that once Republicans got power, rather than remaining true to the conservative agenda, they worked to stay in power.
Also, Senator Coburn gives the facts regarding the so-called “budget surplus.” He flat out says it was a myth, that the budget surpluses were actually Social Security collecting more than it was spending.
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.