Posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:07 PM PST by CometBaby
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Wow, you're trying to steal bases in both directions.
1. I never said "must".
2. You, and others here, are doing far more than "asking questions about the battleplan".
All citizens of the United States have a legitimate right to discuss this issue in good faith regardless of how it is "acutally affecting" any individual.
That's true and I do not question your "right" to say anything under the sun. What I question is on what basis you present Iraq as crisis which requires a drastic alteration in something we are doing. Usually such a view is based on something, but in the case of you and 99% of other Iraq chicken-littles, it's not. It's not based on anything of substance. (Someone blew up a building - accomplishing nada of military value - and that's enough to make some squishy Americans go "ooh" and "aah" and throw up their hands. A building! For crying out loud!)
Now, to be clear, that's fine, I mean that's your "right" to push the panic button based on nothing of substance. Meanwhile it's my "right" to wonder why you're doing so, and so I have. See? :-)
Further, all citizens of a free state have the right to question how long a war will continue
Again, the question is not one of "rights". I am not questioning anyone's "right" to say things! And actually, on this question, it has been asked and answered: we don't know and no honest person can state how long this war will continue. That is the answer to your question. Either deal with it, or not, but at least have the alertness to recognize that your question has been answered: nobody knows how long it will continue.
Before you fire back with a "Well, that's just not acceptable!", let me remind you that very very rarely in all of human history have nations fought wars whose length they knew in advance. It is the norm not the exception to not know how long a war will continue. It is a mark of how truly spoiled and pampered we are that some percentage of our citizens now actually expects our leaders to be able to say in advance that "this war will last X more months" or whatever. Just think about it.
You're right - I really don't care about what kind of government they end up with, as long as all of those who would attack our country are killed.
So actually, we have very similar goals then. Killing those who would attack our country (before they have a chance to gain power) is a big reason why we still need a troop presence there. Yet some people, even here, advocate a pullout. Inexplicable.
Al Qaeda is in Iraq. They've even been considerate enough to label their franchise there (drumroll) "Al Qaeda in Iraq". Do you remember Al Qaeda? Do the Buchananites on this thread remember Al Qaeda? That's the organization which committed an act of war against our country. They are operating in Iraq, which has a power vaccuum.
So, I ask you: what better place for our military to be stationed? Where would you rather our military be? South Dakota? Should we cede Iraq to Al Qaeda? Let them take over Iraq because it's so "lost", because it's "taking so long"?
I just don't get it.
What does it matter to you? How would it affect you, really, if we killed two or three or ten million civilians in the course of this war?
I'd feel pretty bad about it, I reckon. If I could tell myself that it was done out of some huge necessity or urgency (as with, I believe, the nuking of Japan, preventing a more bloody invasion), then maybe I could assuage that guilt. But there is no such urgency or necessity which is why I keep asking you why you think there is, capisce?
Well by that standard Saddam was definitely our ongoing business - at all times from 1991 on! - because of what George H.W. Bush involved us in in 1991 and the subsequent cease-fire. (Not end of war; cease-fire.)
In fact the link from the '91 Gulf War to Saddam being our business in 2003 is far more direct than the link you're talking about between US entry to WWI -> the WWI peace settlement -> Weimar -> Hitler & the Holocaust.
You might as well ask the same question about Afghanistan: none of the people on the planes on 9/11 were Afghans. Did/do you oppose our actions in Afghanistan on that basis? Let us know....
Would it be
1.Liberals and the Mainstream media
or
2. Al Qaeda?
I was going to say 3 groups but Liberals and the mainstream media are one in the same.
Mr. Buckley should either take a trip to Iraq or have a 1:1 talk to Laura Ingraham.
The War On Terror has no endgame just like the war on poverty. We will always have terrorists, even if we need to redefine it, just as we did with poverty.
A rose is a rose is a rose. Call it the war on militant Islam or AQ. There is an endgame.
How about this take in Iraq:
As Ayn Rand would say, the people of Iraq had no rights as the country was controlled by a dictator that they refused to take action and oust yet despised. The basic concept is that when a country is controlled by an invader such as a dictator it is subject to invasion by any other, in this case the US.
Iraq is now free to do with herself as she pleases. It seems as though now that they no longer worry about saddam and we have let them be as they desire, they desire war with each other.
A rose IS a rose; a weed,however, is not. Call it a war on AQ, I can live with that, but they didn't call it that.
Well let's see, we went into Iraq with the express purpose of taking down its leader and foist our own political vision upon them. A leader that, ha ha, WE put into power! Now its a huge surprise that democracy won't readily root into soil which is so foreign to it.
In Afghanistan, we are pursuing a terrorist leader and his gang, NOT displacing the government, unless you can enlighten me further on this score.
Well, if I was a "tough guy" would I use a nick like CometBaby? :-)
Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman who was flawed in various aspects. It's pretty hard to exercise your “Free Will” when you are being marched into a mass grave. But it is easy to climb on a high horse and self-righteously declare that the people of Iraq "refused to take action" .. when you never had the gun pointed at your own head.
I think that "take on Iraq" .. stinks.
I'd pick this apart but then you would think you got away with changing the subject.
Let's try this again:
You - "all the people on the planes on 9/11 were Saudis, so why are we in Iraq?"
Me - " Did/do you oppose our actions in Afghanistan on that basis?"
Let me know if you ever want to answer my question.
In Afghanistan, we are pursuing a terrorist leader and his gang, NOT displacing the government, unless you can enlighten me further on this score.
We most certainly did displace the extant government of Afghanistan. You might remember the word "Taliban" having been prominently in the news a few years back? That was them. The new government which has been formed in Kabul in its place was facilitated by nothing if not our military actions, exactly the thing you are complaining about when it happens in Iraq.
So, ready to answer my question yet?
Let's try this again:
You - "all the people on the planes on 9/11 were Saudis, so why are we in Iraq?"
Me - " Did/do you oppose our actions in Afghanistan on that basis?"
Let me know if you ever want to answer my question.
Okay, we'll play by the rules. The majority (I've been corrected) of the people who flew the planes were Saudis as is Osama Bin Laden and I would imagine, most of Al-Quieda. And as far as I know, they were holed up in Afghanistan but have yet to be located.
The new government which has been formed in Kabul in its place was facilitated by nothing if not our military actions, exactly the thing you are complaining about when it happens in Iraq.
Thanks for the enlightenment. My guess is that we will be at war with one or both of these countries within a decade and for that, only time will tell.
By "they" I assume you mean Al Qaeda, not "the people who flew the planes" (who all died on 9/11 and thus never had a chance to go hole up in Afghanistan afterwards). Anyway, what we've established I think is that the actual nationality of the hijackers isn't relevant to the price of tea in China. None of those hijackers were Afghans but you were (it appears) ok with the invasion of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was there, end of story.
Well, hate to be the first (?) to break this to you but Al Qaeda (you know, the organization whose existence in Afghanistan apparently made you ok with military action in Afghanistan?) is now in Iraq. Like I said earlier in this thread, the affiliate there even been considerate enough to just go ahead and call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (just in case some of us are so dense that we don't quite get it, perhaps?). And yet you're griping about us being in Iraq. Based on what?
Seemingly, based on the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers - which, as you've just essentially acknowledged, is irrelevant to anything. So, the irrationality of your original complaint is plain to see.
P.S. Oddly, you also speak as if you think that "Al Qaeda", or at least the majority of them, is still confined to Afghanistan and as if OBL is in Afghanistan as far as we know. You have no basis for believing or saying these things. Neither you nor I know where OBL is or even if he's still alive, and as far as you or I know (it's hard to get hard data), Iraq may actually be the primary locus of Al Qaeda at present. But hey even if so, don't let that stop you from griping about us having our military in Iraq. Funny how people are gung ho about fighting Al Qaeda if/when they can convince themselves that Al Qaeda only exists in Afghanistan, but then if Al Qaeda is in Iraq, suddenly it's a horrible idea for us to be in Iraq. "I wanna fight Al Qaeda but only inside the borders of Afghanistan" is a pretty bizarre rallying cry - not to mention a stupid one. Al Qaeda may not wish to cooperate, you know.
I've been out of the loop for most of a week for numerous reasons. I didn't catch Rush at all the last week.
The older I get (55 these days) the fewer and farther between come my heroes, especially among people extant. Buckley has always been one of mine. He still is. He was a beacon in the abyss during my youth.
That doesn't mean I have always felt the same as he does regarding every issue. I have felt a divergence with him on the terror war issue for a long time. I simply want folks critical of the effort since 9-11-01 to explain what they would do if the decision fell to any of them.
The Democrats feel it's incumbent on the United States to be an everlasting bobo.
Buckley thinks the war on terror has failed. I just want him to explain what he would do.
A distinction without a difference. Just as Germany declared war against the US in 1941, Bin Laden and AQ declared war against the United States in August 1996. Read his fatwah entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
On February 23, 1998 Bin Laden issued his fatwahUrging Jihad Against Americans. It doesn't matter what this struggle is called by us. Our enemy calls it a war on America.
Also looks like he was bamboozled by the highly exaggerated reports of sectarian Iraqi violence form this week.
Yes.
Anyway, what we've established I think is that the actual nationality of the hijackers isn't relevant to the price of tea in China. None of those hijackers were Afghans but you were (it appears) ok with the invasion of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was there, end of story.
Nice try. "We've" established nothing of the kind. Saudis were by and large responsible for 9/11. An association was drawn between THOSE Saudis and Osama Bin Laden et al who are ALSO Saudi. Osama and Company were enjoying the hospitality of the Taliban in Afghanistan according to this source. So there is a rationale for going after those guys WHEREVER they are, even Iraq! What that has to do with Hussein, non-existent WMD's OR the price of tea in China is beyond me.
And yet you're griping about us being in Iraq. Based on what?
Based on several things: wasting lives for one, wasting money and resources for two and three. We should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries but I guess that's one of those nasty habits we have that's gotten hard to break. I will completely admit I'm wrong IF democracy takes root over there in any recognizable form but more than likely we will get a theocratic democracy in a best case scenario and they will not get over our military occupation of their homeland anytime soon.
Seemingly, based on the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers - which, as you've just essentially acknowledged, is irrelevant to anything. So, the irrationality of your original complaint is plain to see.
The only thing that is becoming plain to see is your disingenuousness and your amazing ability to jump to wrong conclusions.
Yes, it does. Choice of terms frames the debate. We are now entering the Orwellian age of perpetual war.
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.