Posted on 03/10/2006 9:22:46 AM PST by stand4somethin
If the democrats had strongly supported the war we were in, and been part of the process, many mistakes could have been avoided, our enemies would have lived in fear rather than being emboldened.
The President could put political pressure on Iraq to get their act together -- which he can't do now because he needs them to counter the democrats opposition.
A united america would be a strong america, making it easier to get other countries involved, and making it more likely we would succeed.
And in that environment there wouldn't be any "weariness" to be expressed.
In other words, if the republicans had spent 4 years attacking FDR during WW2 the way the democrats are Bush today, It is likely that when we started losing 75% of the forces entering the dark forest, we would have given up.
Democracy will not work in any Muslim dominated country. Don't trot out Turkey as an example. The Islamist movement there elected enough to their congress last time to stop us from invading Iraq from the north. Look for a lot of changes in Turkey next election, maybe even imposing sharia law.
Democracy requires a literate, educated society. This flies in the face of a domineering religion (death cult) based on reading only one "perfect" book. Hide and watch.
Charles... I personally think we have already experienced success in Iraq. The dems want to frame the argument that we won't be successful until they have a democracy there. That is BS. They may never have a democracy there. But we gave them the chance. Thats alot. Thats success. If they can't make it happen it isn't our fault.
As long as the "success" is connected to a democratic government in Iraq we will have problems. That may or may not happen. The Bush administration is horrible at PR because they have allowed "success" to be framed as democracy in Iraq. Now being horrible at PR doesn't make you a bad president... but it hurts your cause to some degree.
If folks like Victor Davis Hanson had fought WWII, we'd probably still be waging a half-@ssed war against both countries. The notion that we can "win" a war in which we aren't even willing (or able) to name the enemy is silly and delusional.
Outstanding post. Bump for bookmarking later.
You forget that we were in a state a War with Iraq since 1991 (end of war means one side surrenders).
They were shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones.
They attempted to assasinate a US president.
They were probably behind the first WTC bombing and possibly OKC.
Leaving Saddam and his spawn in power would have meant that the "Oil For Food" fraud would have continued (remember that?).
And the WMDs that were moved to Syria would still be in Iraq.
And the money would still be paid to the families of the homicide bombers blowing up Israeli pizza parlors and the Frank Sinatra Center.
And Ghaddafi in Libya would still be spewing his pro-terrorist crap.
The truth is..we were going FINISH the war against Iraq sooner or later....later means facing those "non existant" WMDs and/or nukes
So true! They're reading too much of the MSM, and not getting enough info from the guys 'in country.'
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.