Posted on 09/27/2001 11:17:30 PM PDT by Proud2BAmerican
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:38:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In his resolve to hunt down and kill the Osama bin Laden terrorists he says committed the Sept. 11 massacres, President Bush has behind him a nation more unified than it has been since Pearl Harbor. But now Bush has been put on notice that this war cannot end with the head of bin Laden and the overthrow of the Taliban.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
However, I seem to read Pat as insinuating that we shouldn't at least go finish the job with Saddam in Iraq. From what i've read, and from what most people have said, it seems pretty evident that Saddam has had a major role in the terrorism against the United States, and it seems he has plans for future attacks against the U.S., so far as he is capable. I think, since he is the highest profiled terrorist-minded tyrant there, we should make an example of him after we finish with bin Laden. Clean up Saddam, bring him to justice as well, and respond in kind to any future terrorist attacks on the U.S. We dont' need to fight Israel's wars for her. We dont' need to go over and clean out all the evil regimes in the Middle East. But we do need to take care of our own interests, and our national security is at stake as long as Saddam is left to his own devices in his country.
What Mr.Buchanan does not seem to understand is that Israel is America's strategic asset, not liability.
Any one have the rest of the names on this traitors list. This act of undermining our entire war effort and the safety of our troops in the field at this critical time, is nothing less than treason.
War? What war? So far it is all talk and no show.
The major thing Powell and Bush Sr. goofed on with the Iraq war was leaving Hussein in power.
First, Bin Laden should be eliminated and the Taliban unseated. Next, I think that Bush should assess his coalition cards and, if possible, pick the most guilty target of those mentioned by the neoconservatives and "let-um have it", in spades. Whatever target Bush picks should be rendered totally and completely powerless at the completion of the campaign. Taking out the Taliban will not impress anybody. They are not a military presence. We shouldn't leave the area until we have made a distinct impression.
Prior behavior should certainly be a factor in the selection of this target, because the purpose is deterrence. Every government and society in the region should recognize that any future harboring of terrorists could result in their destruction. This operation should bear no resemblance to Clinton's ineffectual "message" to Bin Laden; i.e., the missiles which did not hit anything significant. When we walk away, this adversary should not be left standing in the field. That is the message to be sent to those remaining. Once we leave, no one should look forward to our return.
My father used to tell me that the way to handle a bunch of bullies was to pick the leader, or the largest one, and sucker punch them. If you take out the strongest member, then rest will fold. If not, then at least you have taken care of the the largest adversary before the rest of the fight begins.
As of Sept. 11, 2001, we did not possess a credible deterrent to prevent Islamic terrorists, and their support groups and support nations, from engaging in a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. We must create one with our actions in this coming war.
It should be clear to all that the prepetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks wuld have used ANY weapon at their disposal against us at ANY time in ANY place. That means a nuclear device in Manhattan or in DC.
I have been strongly against aid to Israel for years, and have been warning that we would pay a severe price for our support of our prickly and self-obsessed "ally". But we have interests in the Middle East, and in other areas of the world that contain Muslim and/or Arab populations, quite apart from the Israeli complications. Now that we have been attacked, we must respond, for our own future safety.
Well, I hope so, but don't you notice that "snooze" button is already being pressed by the officials and the media?
This article reminds me of Gingrich's letter to Powell asking him why the State Department is not also going after Hamas and Hezbollah.
Does Powell want Iraq and Hamas and Hezbollah to be off limits to the US war on terrorism?? If so, Why??
One explanation for the exclusion of Hamas and Hezbollah is to pressure Israel for concessions to the Palestinians.
I WRITE: I would sign on to that. Bin Laden is a minor player in all of this - evidence seems to strongly suggest Saddam's hand, at least indirectly, behind the terrorist attacks. And he also has the capability, and motive, to unleash a crippling biological destruction on the U.S. But we must take care not to let this whole endeavor disintegrate into a gigantic war fought against the entire Middle East, sans Israel.
YOU WROTE: The major thing Powell and Bush Sr. goofed on with the Iraq war was leaving Hussein in power.
I WRITE: Agreed.
YOU WROTE: First, Bin Laden should be eliminated and the Taliban unseated. Next, I think that Bush should assess his coalition cards and, if possible, pick the most guilty target of those mentioned by the neoconservatives and "let-um have it", in spades. Whatever target Bush picks should be rendered totally and completely powerless at the completion of the campaign. Taking out the Taliban will not impress anybody. They are not a military presence. We shouldn't leave the area until we have made a distinct impression.
I WRITE: Agreed.
YOU WROTE: Prior behavior should certainly be a factor in the selection of this target, because the purpose is deterrence. Every government and society in the region should recognize that any future harboring of terrorists could result in their destruction. This operation should bear no resemblance to Clinton's ineffectual "message" to Bin Laden; i.e., the missiles which did not hit anything significant. When we walk away, this adversary should not be left standing in the field. That is the message to be sent to those remaining. Once we leave, no one should look forward to our return.
I WRITE: Well, I'm all for serving notice to those who have caused us injury, but with reports of Sudan arresting 30 terrorists they've nabbed in their country suggests to me that some in the Middle East are already getting the message: clean up your backyards, or we'll do it for you -- and you're not gonna like how we do it, because if we have to clean it, there's a good chance it'll remain "clean" for about 150 years, or however long the half-life is for the plutonium in one of our low-grade nukes. To my mind, we should limit our response in this situation to those whom we know to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 tragedy. And we should also, at the same time, serve notice to anyone that Uncle Sam is on guard again, our intelligence is back up, and we will keep watch on your countries -- if we sniff out potential terrorist threats in your lands, you can bet damned sure that we will be coming in a hurry, with or without your permission. I think that should serve as a deterrent to the Middle East to keep their houses in order and not mess with the U.S.
I guess you think the war on Iraq and Yugoslavia was all talk and no show. The build up time for either of those two wars was a lot longer than 17 days, with direct access available in both cases. This war, potentially larger than both of them combined, without the benefit of direct access, will also require build up time. I've seen a lot more than "all talk."
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.