Posted on 07/10/2003 3:32:23 PM PDT by Kaslin
Iraq was the home of the Abu Nidal Organisation--ANO was responsible for the deaths of Americans in airport attacks and airplane hijackings. And another terrorist, Abu Abbas, was captured by U.S. forces in Iraq--remember Leon Klinghoffer & the Achille Lauro? How about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the only 1993 World Trade Center bombing indictee not in prison--he escaped to Iraq. Hussein was paying for the suicide bombers in Palestine. 500 suicide bombing belts were found in a high school outside Baghdad. He attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda organization, was operating from an enclave in Iraq. At least one high level prisoner from Ansar al Islam told of meetings with Hussein's government. Al Qaeda prisoners in Gitmo told of Iraqi support for training. Iraq operated a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak that included an airplane fuselage used to rehearse hijacking techniques. Saddam Hussein's regime was inextricably linked with terrorists and terrorism; to include terror organizations that had attacked and killed Americans. And although there is not yet court-room level "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof of Al Qaeda links, there are certainly indicators of such linkages.
Having any troops at all in Europe is crazy.
Perhaps. Certainly, this is not a risk-free strategy on the part of the Bush Administration. But taking a risk to achieve a possible victory is far better than accepting certain defeat. Iran is an example of a nation that has tasted Westernism and will return to it soon enough. Islamic folderol notwithstanding, peace, freedom and prosperity are something all humans desire, and, once acquired are a difficult taste to lose. Yes, even in the middle east, it is possible, but not an effortless task.
Our nation is in mortal peril, and this is not a time for sophistry or abstraction. The threat is real, and it must be addressed now. It is not limited to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein or even Islam in general, but involves much stronger geopolitical forces that are aligning in dangerous combinations.
The well-worn cliche about America being the world's only superpower is a misleading canard. We are in great danger from nearly every direction. If our government falters now, our nation will be destroyed.
But I do not place my faith blindly; it must be earned. I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, but I do understand "strategery". I don't agree with a lot of what Abraham Lincoln did, either, but he did what he felt had to be done, at tremendous cost.
Lincoln was ridiculed as being a gangly country simpleton by his opponents, the Washington insiders and power brokers who were already well established in the capitol of a nation less than a century old. They considered Lincoln to be stupid, and guileless and underestimated him at every turn. Lincoln played into that by making no attempts to publicly rebuff their harsh and rude treatment of him.
Instead, he methodically neutralized almost every single one of them over the course of his short presidency. In many cases, he neutralized his enemies by appointing them to cabinet posts or other high offices where they could not openly disagree with his decisions, but, ironically, were forced to carry them out (probably the main factor leading to his assassination, but a powerful strategy). He seized and wielded more power than any U.S. president before or since, until now.
President Bush is a modern Abraham Lincoln. The parallels are stunning. Change a few names and dates, and account for changes in our evolving language, and the papers of today read almost like those of Lincoln's time. As with Lincoln, Bush's opponents endlessly "misunderestimate" him, and he rules with near impunity, wheeling and dealing his way to greater power as a modern "Honest Abe".
It is our duty as American citizens to question our government at every turn, because we are the final check against tyranny, and no other. So I will never expect anyone to blindly follow Bush, and, in fact, cannot advise against it strongly enough.
However, I am satisfied that, ultimately, like Lincoln, he is a man of towering character and principle, even while being more devious than Machiavelli.
And that is exactly the kind of leader we need. At least, for now.
I didn't wish to sound as harsh as I did in responding to AAABEST. Having pulled six years myself, and damn near not surviving them (but that's another story), I can assure you that the news coming from Iraq is worse to me than a root canal, and it's much worse than that for the families and friends of our warriors there.*
But just like a root canal, sometimes great pain must be endured voluntarily to prevent much greater pain and ruin later. That is the case with Iraq. Does the fate of America depend on success in Iraq? I hope not, but it very well may.
And if that is so, then, as us old warhorses like to say, failure is not an option.
* Meanwhile, the troops themselves are going to need a lot more than "We Support Our Troops" lip service. They are sweating blood and sh*tting bricks day in and day out, bored and terrified at the same time, for months now, and many to come. The casualties of this war are not limited to the dead and physically wounded. God bless and keep every last one of them. God bless them all, and guide them to victory. They must not fail.
What entitles you to say "we", you little weasel?
"We" meaning the United States of America. "We" also meaning our soldiers, whom I view as my brothers and sisters being that I was in that s**t hole the for the first Gulf War.
Now it's your turn to answer a question suckface, what were you doing while "we" were over there? I'm guessing you were picking your nose in suburbia and whining like a girl, just as you're doing now.
You call your last post to me "harsh" ....lol. I didn't view it as such. If that's harsh I'd hate to see you get nice on me, you'd kill me with kindness.
Yeah, I'll refer you to the Secretary of State's presentation to the United Nations a few months back. I think he provided adequate evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Hope this helps.
[Takes a long swig of beer] I LOVE you man! :^)
I don't think we differ at all on the idea that our military forces are not abstract poker chips to be squandered for personal political gain, and that the U.S. should not concern itself with unnecessary "foreign entanglements". Spending human life in such a fashion is evil, no two ways about it.
In the case of Iraq, I think good people can differ as to the necessity of fighting there. My initial reaction was skeptical, until I realized (or at least think I realized) the strategery behind it. Time will tell if I'm right.
I think it's important to remember what happened in Vietnam, on all levels, and learn its lessons, but not to assume that every mission to fight totalitarianism will turn out the same way. We CAN win, if the cause is just and our leadership strong.
Whatever our opinions may be on Iraq, we're in it but good. Now that the balloon has gone up, I think it is extremely important to understand that supporting our troops includes supporting what they are doing, whatever our personal misgivings about the mission may be.
Does that mean agreeing in lockstep with everything Bush does? Hell no! But either we are committed to the War in Iraq as a nation, or we are divided, and fighting for a divided nation is the epitome of despair.
Our people are dying in Iraq. If we lead them to believe that they are dying needlessly, we are betraying them in the worst possible way.
And that would be another Vietnam.
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.