Posted on 09/11/2002 6:05:30 AM PDT by Clinton Is Scum
Can a patriot have misgivings about attacking Iraq? Is opposition limited to peaceniks and American-hating multiculturalists? Wars have unintended consequences. Would an American invasion of an Arab country further radicalize the Islamic world, leading to the rise of unfriendly governments in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Would the United States then have to invade a hostile Pakistan because of its nuclear weapons? The terrorist threat comes from radical Islam. Saddam Hussein runs a secular state. Would overthrowing a secular ruler help or harm radical Islam? An American attack on Iraq would cause a loss of sympathy among our European allies. Would a more isolated America receive the same cooperation in the battle against terror? War hawks believe that a demonstration of U.S. military clout would improve the Middle Eastern situation. But Israel has been demonstrating clout for decades and is still engulfed by terrorism. No doubt Saddam Hussein bears the United States ill will, and he may be acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, is the level of threat to the United States from a country of 23 million relatively poor and uneducated people blown out of proportion? If the United States is to adopt the Roman approach of overthrowing enemies before they arise, the it should focus on China, a much greater potential threat. Ambitious China has the world's largest population and weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration gave China the missile technology required to reach American cities. U.S. firms, seeking lower costs, are building up China's high-tech industrial capacity. Sound arguments can be made that the focus on Iraq is preventing more serious vulnerabilities from being addressed. Terrorists abroad do us less damage than the terrorists allowed into our country by our open-borders policy. The Untied States is so politically correct that it no longer differentiates between illegal aliens and native-born citizens. Author and columnist Georgie Anne Geyer has shown that open borders have turned American citizenship into an empty concept. If you believe that the United States has borders, read columnist Michelle Malkin's just released book, "Invasion." Malkin shows that aliens' rights trump both citizens' rights and citizens' safety. No effort is made to control our borders. Malkin reports that in the six months following the Sept. 11 attacks, the State Department issued almost 200,000 additional visas to Middle Easterners and Southern Asians, areas that are known havens for al Qaeda. People without visas enter unhindered from Canada and Mexico. Visas continue to be granted indiscriminately even though the State Department knows that a high percentage will overstay their visas and disappear into the population. The United States has become such a hodgepodge of different peoples and cultures that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has washed its hands of locating and deporting illegal aliens. Can a country conduct a war on terror when it cannot control its own borders? Does it make sense for a country that refuses to defend its own borders to invade another country? American universities have repeatedly made it clear that their multicultural goal is to prevent students from being enculturated into Western civilization. What does a people stripped of its identity defend? The United States may be in more danger from the extraordinary imbalance in the political and ideological commitments of its university faculties than it is from Saddam Hussein. Time and age will destroy Hussein. But university faculties are self-selecting and self-perpetuating, and these faculties are overwhelmingly hostile to traditional American values and any political party that stands for these values. An article in the current issue of The American Enterprise magazine, "The Shame of America's One-Party Campuses," shows the ratio of left-wing to conservative professors in a number of universities. At Cornell the ratio is 27 to 1. At Harvard it is 25 to 1. The ratio is 35 to 1 at Denver College, 50 to 1 at Williams College, 72 to 1 at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 25 to 1 at Syracuse University, 8 to 1 at Berkeley, 15 to 1 at UCLA, 35 to 1 at the State University of New York at Binghamton, 9 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to 1 at Davidson College. And some people think the problem is in Iraq? |
Actually, now that Israel has been allowed to fight back, some claim Hamas is 98% decimated as a military force, and is debating an end to terrorism as a way to save what's left of their political viability. But thanks for bringing up the Israeli model for us.
"wads" regenerate.
There's no firm evidence that China is involved in terrorism, much less 9/11, and there's no 10-year-old cease fire that they broke to justify our "resumption of hostilities".
Also we have to learn to walk before we can run.
The author's meatheads are dishonest. Any one of us could come up with a list of a dozen or more social problems that we could say must be solved before attacking Iraq, or doing anything else.
We must do both.
Roberts is correct when he points out the bipartisan failures of the Bush Adminstration to secure our borders in the last year. He is wrong with regard to his understanding of the Moslem mind when he states:
"The terrorist threat comes from radical Islam. Saddam Hussein runs a secular state. Would overthrowing a secular ruler help or harm radical Islam?"
Saddam is secular, as far as other Moslems are concerned, only until he is confronted by a Jew or a Christian. Then he is transformed into the purest acolyte of his "anscestor" Mohammed, standard-bearer of Allah, and would-be liberator of Jerusalem-- just like his fellow Tikrit hometown Idol, Saladin. Nevermind that Saladin was a Kurd or that Hussein is not a descendent of Mohammed or that Mohammed never went to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: facts are not important to Islam.
Further, for Roberts to suggest that the terrorist threat doesn't come, at least in part, from Saddam, is nonsense. Hussein was definitely behind the 1993 WTC bombing and has definitely been funding the families of "palestinian" homicide bombers. Then there are the links to OKC and Al Qaeda.
Does anyone doubt that Hussein would provide WMDs to terrorists if it suited him?
We have no choice but to secure our borders and destroy the Stalinist Moslem state of Iraq.
If he is setting in a camp in Timbuktu he can be wiped out by an aerial attack with smart weapons. In the United States, he can melt into the population and survive indefinitely until he has a chance to strike. Now tell me, if this isn't logical, what is wrong with this theory? If not, do you think that the terrorist is too stupid to figure this angle out?
So does inaction! Appeasement didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with Saddam. Saddam wants to be the top dog in the Arab world. What better way to accomplish this goal, than with a big strike in the American heartland? We ignore Saddam at our own peril!!
Secular schmecular. Just scratch a millimeter deep and they are in Jihad mode. Sadddam gives $25,000 checks to families of suicide bombers that kill Jews of Israel. Of course a few non Jews get killed too such as Arabs who happen to be on the bus and foreign workers.
I swear, these "ideology über alles" types are a dangerous cancer and a threat to our lives.
These types on the Right must realize that they are actually aiding the blatant anti-Americans among us by their arguments, yet they go on undeterred.
They won't be satisfied until another few thousands (hundreds of thousands, maybe?) are killed to justify their ideology when we could have prevented it.
I say DAMN their ideology. Innocent Americans' blood will not be on my hands. I won't be held captive or restrained by it. Can't speak for you, but I won't be.
The sources and evidence are copious.
This book is a good place to start...
"Study of Revenge" is, first of all, the story of the Trade Center bombing. Mylroie contends that the mastermind behind the bombing was an Iraqi intelligence agent, Ramzi Yousef, who escaped and left behind the Muslim fundamentalists who participated in the plot and were meant to be caught. She argues that the Clinton administration's mishandling of the event led to the emergence of a fraudulent and dangerous theory about Middle East terrorismthat it is no longer primarily state-sponsored but is carried out by individuals or "loose networks." The misunderstanding is particularly dangerous in light of the prospects for biological terrorism.
In addition to her account of events around the bombing, Mylroie describes how Saddam Hussein has steadily regained strength and eroded the system of postwar constraints that were supposed to hold him in check. She suggests that because of the proscribed unconventional-weapons capabilities Saddam retained in violation of the Gulf War cease-fireand without the check of U.N. weapons inspectorshe is far more dangerous than is generally recognized.
Mylroie bases her case on a meticulous analysis of the government's evidence in the terrorism trials that followed the Trade Center bombing. Her book is written as a detective story, and the reader is invited to conduct the investigation into state sponsorship of the terrorism that the U.S. government failed to conduct.
LINK
Please post.
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.