Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Your ‘traditional sense’ comment is somewhat valid. I would ask if you thought the shrinking of the planet might make some of the traditional tenets somewhat untenable at this jucture though.

When you’ve got people from Middle-Eastern nations traveling to Europe and the U.S. peddling the terrorist dogma, aren’t we somewhat compelled to respond?

We were attacked by terrorists. Just because they weren’t a viable government’s leadership, isn’t it just as necessary for us to respond? Should we have waited until more attacks before responding?

It seems to me after the Cole, the embassy bombings, the barrak bombins, at some point we had to stand up and say, “Enough is enough!” Do you disagree with that?

In light of 09/11, you don’t think going after the terrorists where ever they were was a conservative action?

I ask this, because I do. And I happen to think that Saddam Hussein was a figurehead for terrorists, even if he wasn’t “THE” figurehead.

He paid out $25, to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He violated the restrictions placed upon him by the international community. He made public statements calling for the destruction of the U.S.

I’m not sure how many cheeks some people think the U.S. should have turned before taking serious action.

What are your thoughts on this?


44 posted on 09/02/2007 4:38:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

Correction: “He paid out $25,000...”


52 posted on 09/02/2007 4:46:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
We should have went after Islamic terrorism after the original WTC in 1993, but that's simply playing the coulda woulda shoulda game.

Like I said, I have some reservations about Paul on foreign policy. I would like for him to call Islam what it truly is. Where I agree with him is that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of those Middle Eastern countries. Look, that region has been in turmoil since the dawn of time. You're talking centuries-old conflicts and ideas here. After the surge is complete and Iraq is stabilized, we should leave. We should secure our own borders and end immigration from Muslim countries here. Let them stew in their own juices.

If Paul was President, I wouldn't doubt for a second that he would declare war and fight like he meant it. He wouldn't be consulting with the UN or trying to appease "the international community." He'd declare war to Congress and fight it. So FReepers calling Paul a "cut-and-runner" or "being in bed with the terrorists" are really disingenious, considering that Paul has been a staunch supporter of the military up until Iraq.

56 posted on 09/02/2007 4:49:37 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson