Posted on 08/09/2003 6:11:22 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.
In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004, leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Here is your original statement:
That doesn't capture all the opposition and hatred towards us in the Muslim world but - ok - Islamic fundamentalism. Where do they live? Last I looked there were plenty in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, much of Muslim southeast Asia, at least. So Bush is going after all those countries. Right?
The point you were hoping to make is that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, but didn't attack any other country known to be friendly to islamic fundamentalism, therefore they are somehow being inconsistent or hiding their real goals. That is the standard liberal line.
Of course it leaves out the fact that you do not have to invade or attack a country to affect change. Probably the best examples now are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries are feeling the heat and in Iran's case, the population is looking to change the government, and in SA's case, the government is slowly coming to grips with the fact that Wahabism is one of the roots of terrorism.
Will anything come of these situations? It's too early to tell. But it does show that actions that the Administration are persuing are beginning to bear fruit.
So, to answer your question, we do not have to invade every country that supports or tolerates terrorism.
The point you were hoping to make is that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, but didn't attack any other country known to be friendly to islamic fundamentalism, therefore they are somehow being inconsistent or hiding their real goals. That is the standard liberal line.
The point I was trying to make is the point I have been making all along - we intend to change the entire Muslim world and Iraq is only a small part of the strategy.
Of course it leaves out the fact that you do not have to invade or attack a country to affect change. Probably the best examples now are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries are feeling the heat and in Iran's case, the population is looking to change the government, and in SA's case, the government is slowly coming to grips with the fact that Wahabism is one of the roots of terrorism.
No, it leaves out nothing. We chose Iraq precisely because of the likely domino effects.
Will anything come of these situations? It's too early to tell. But it does show that actions that the Administration are persuing are beginning to bear fruit. So, to answer your question, we do not have to invade every country that supports or tolerates terrorism.
You really ought to learn to read. I never said we had to invade every country that supports of tolerates terrorism. I said we intend to change the culture which encourages and spawns such things. But we will invade if we have to. Every country on that list, and some that aren't, will be changed one way or another.
My own feeling is that it's unlikely we'll get off easily or cheaply.
No. I was tired of waiting for you to finally say what you were going to say. Crap like that is quite childish.
However, it's nice to see that you've finally backpedalled into supporting Bush.
Thanks. It will take me awhile to go through it.
Especially considering there are no pictures. ;)
...but not the entire Muslim world. Any clues yet?
Well let's see...Afghanistan has no oil
Iraq's oil was being plundered by Hussein and now is providing income to it's rightful owners, the Iraqis..
The other countries you mention, we have not attacked, nor do Paskistan or Egypt have much in the way of oil,but they are all hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism run for the most part by authoritarian despots.
I'd say we are trying to eradicate the cancer of fundamentalist hate which we seem to have made a good start at in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Was that your point?
That's not a bad way of putting it. I find it extremely discouraging to find that I've been so unclear. Sorry.
I supported - and continue to support - our intervention in the Middle East...
From my post #9. We are now nearly at #90. I have never "backpedalled" and you are exactly what you've accused me of being - a thoroughly dishonest ignoramus.
I think we've made the right moves in the Middle East.
I think our goal is to change Muslim culture.
I think we emphasized and perhaps exagerated the immediate dangers of Iraq's WMDs because that was the only way to sell our policy.
I think we have not clearly publicized our real goal of radically changing the political culture of the entire Muslim world because that is unsaleable and would raise a firestorm of protest.
I think our policies of deception in this regard are justified. 911 gave us a window of opportunity, a chance to act boldly and we took it. The next blow might be hugely more damaging. We're doing everything possible to forestall it.
Dishonest?
Let's try again. You said:
Now, WHO was being dishonest? Note, I did not accuse Bush of lying.
Don't bother answering, anyone who so desires can endeavor to find out.
It depends on what you think are the consequences of massive and indescriminate usage.
Also, be certain and tell us what's better, waiting until a city disappears or ending the problem before it grow?
How is this relevant to anything I've said? If you mean in a life or death situation is it better that we survive than they why would you assume that I'd respond differently than most men?
I said it in Post #9, and again in #90, and many times in between. Since you can read I think you're terminally dishonest.
Many are upset with me and do call me a war-monger and a fascist and many of the other standard slurs. But we're still friends and it's fun to argue with them.
What's with the move-on.dot org? Are you being serious here? What makes you think I'm a member of such an organization? The closest I've come to political activism - other than Free-Republic - was a brief period of membership in Zero Population Growth. That as much as anything disillusioned me with the Left. Not because I came to disagree with the basic ideas espoused but because the Left was so unable to see the other side - or to consider consequences or policies which might harm its constituency.
Not so different from what I find here.
Yes.
Are you for changing the islamic world?
Yes.
I sure am, but I'm not sure of your positions at all
That's discouraging as hell to hear since I said it as clearly as I could in many posts on this thread. I wonder what I'm doing wrong?
I believe that the Administration at the very least exagerated the immediate dangers of Iraq's WMDs in order to sell their policy of military intervention. I support both the policy and the exagerations used to sell it.
I've had arguments several times over the last few months about the latter. My opponents felt that exagerations (lies?) would return to haunt the administration. I felt that was unlikely because the we had real reasons to fear Iraq's policies and actions, and because Al Queda would likely perpetrate another outrage which would make everyone forget about exagerations. It appears my opponents were right.
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.