Posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:02 PM PST by ouroboros
Saddam Hussein as Baath party leader is a militant secularist, to the extent that he was waging a war (US and Soviet supported) against Khomeini's Iran. Bin Laden and his associates are related to the Saudies ruling in Arabia who are the most extreme Muslim sect - Wahabites which is causing mess in Balkans, Chechnya and elsewhere. The head of the snake in in Riyadh not in Baghdad.
Overthrowing secular regime in Iraq very likely will make the situation worse, not better.
Yep, I guess 60 days were many years to them.
I think Jim is hinting that Pat is out of his element here in the good ol' U.S. of A. and is being called home to his ancestral Ireland. While the tune of Danny Boy, or the Londonderry Air, is Irish, the popular lyrics posted here were penned by an Englishman. Not a spectacularly witty post but I think I got the point just the same. I also disagree with it.
This war is not on any particular country, but on the Al Qaeda network and its future heirs. If such are found in Iraq, we make war on Iraq; if not, we don't.
We would be justified to make war on terrorits organizations unrelated to the Twin Towers massacre: Hesbollah and Hamas, but not being in a direct conflict with them we should probably let Israel do it, unless Hesbollah or Hamas attack us or merge with Al Qaeda.
This is a CAMPAIGN against terrorism.
The Campaigns In WWII included N. Africa, Italy, and D-Day + Breakout & Invasion.
There are strategic reasons for taking out Afghanistan first. The real question is this: who is the most logical second step in the campaign.
I submit that it is Iraq. Turkey will not object to restoring the prestige it had (rule) during the Ottoman years. Iran still covets the oil fields where the two countries share a border. With Afghanistan no longer a threat on its eastern border, and a NATO attack led by Turkey on the Northwest border, with a Kurdish uprising coordinated with the attacks, then the allies can seize a considerable portion of Iraq as a first step in the campaign.
This resolve will send a clear message to the Wahabbi's in Saudi. They will back down or we will change the regime.
Iraq is the logical second step.
This is a CAMPAIGN against terrorism.
Is it a campaign against concrete movement or is it a neo-Puritan campaign to eradicate some type of the evil in its all manifestations? If the first it might succeed if the second it will make sitation worse.
This article, taken by itself, is quite accurate in its portrayal of the current political situation surrounding this war. Bush has a choice: expand the war to other nations (and lose the coalition in the process) or end the war with the destruction of Taliban/bin Laden and begin a new peace process. Frankly, the existence of this fork in the road is somewhat undeniable. I don't understand the hysteria.
Yep, I guess 60 days were many years to them.
Actually it was 8 months instead of the 8-10 years they predicted. American (and other) ingenuity brought new techniques to a problem that had never been seen on that scale.
Doesn't the Constitution mandate that Bush protect U.S. citizens regardless of what other nations say or do? In this case, the only defense is a good offense (this is where I part company with Buchanan). Buchanan is the other extreme from Bush the globalist - Buchanan is an isolationist.
My prediction: After Afghanistan we will not do anything other than rattle the saber. Our leaders do not have the moral courage to do what has to be done to protect American citizens.
Gee PJ, what "chattering class" do you fit into these days. Not many radio and TV shows are clamoring for your "talking head" these days. I could be wrong but I doubt if any of the "think tanks" are pinning away from your erudite philosophies. Have you had many calls from the editors of the WSJ, New Republic Weekly Standard, or National Review lately? And to be honest I don't read many op-ed's in the Washington or New York papers but I doubt if your words are finding their way onto their pages either.
Gee, I guess WND is the only place for 3 time loser, chattering class types to end up these days.
Take heart however Pat, 3 or 4 of your minions here on FR will come to your support, so not all your wind will be wasted.
True, but he's not his father.
I'm a little thick this am.(there's a real suprise), could you expand on this.
I may be wrong here, but I think it was his overt attempts to get Gore elected in 2000 that soured his cheese here. But I could be wrong, so who knows?
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.