Posted on 11/14/2008 12:08:11 AM PST by nickcarraway
I am guessing coherence is not a strong point for Hindustan Times writers. Very bizarre article indeed.
“We can agree to disagree on some other points.”
True. No matter how we disagree among ourselves, we have to remember who the real enemy is, and it isn’t us.
“I get so weary of reminding those who refuse to face reality that this is the case. It has been proven, repeatedly, that Islam is at war from within itself, and that we can work with some of them against the worst of the worst.”
Well, the fact is, Islam was at war with itself from its very inception. THroughout its history since the 600’s Muslims have been more than willing to slaughter one another over doctrinal and hereditary rights. But in NO CASE has this diverted them from their primary goal - wordl subjugation.
What I’m saying is we must not delude ourselves into believing that the Iraqis or even Pakistanis or Turks for that matter, are people we can trust and rely on for anything which goes beyond getting rid of an immediate threat to them. Once that threat has been nutralized, they be at our throats. Its the nature of the beast.
WE must be as committed to the destruction of Islam as Isalm is committed to OUR destruction - JUST TO STAY IN PLACE.
And so far, I haven’t seen that feeling expressed by the west yet.
Okay, then: nincompoop, pseudo conservative boob, carpetbagger-from-maine screw-up, knuckleheaded ninny, LOSER!
His tax cut pledge turned our economy around and provided increased revenue to the government. Suggest that if only he had kept taxes higher, he would have been open to overwhelming force in Iraq is wrong on two counts...you get MORE revenue with proper tax cuts, not less, and we DID
I was very much in favor of the cuts but, after 9-11, all bets were off IMO. The attack, to me anyway, ranks up there with Pearl Harbor and response should have required a Declaration of War against Islamic fanaticism--meaning a draft and a quick, decisive and dedicated effort to root out and destroy extremists.
To...Rumsfeld held great sway with Bush in terms of the number of troops needed, as did Tommy Franks. They apparently thought the Afghanistan approach where we didn’t need a lot of troops but used the Northern Alliance and our CIA and military intel forces to quickly topple the Taliban, was the way to go, militarily...they all seemed to miss-call the Iraq insurgency until it was rolling along like a juggernaut. I do agree with you that overwhelming force was called for in the early days. Later, when Petraeus had to come along and save a desperate situation, those who called for levelling Fallujah - to cite one example of many - rather than the Petraeus approach of working with the Sheiks and turning them on Al Qaida - were very wrong. Petraeus was right.
And, the fact then, is that BUSH AND RUMSFELD WERE WRONG! Sorry, but I hold people in important positions accountable for their actions. Rumsfeld, though belatedly after "we took a tumpin'", was fired and I suppose you could say that Bush was repudiated on Nov. 4 (though many here still blame McCain/Palin). Still, there is a lot of residual anger and resentment on my part about what could have been and I remain dubious that the ill feeling I have about the second-worse president of my lifetime will ever go away.
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.