Posted on 05/14/2002 1:33:44 PM PDT by Starmaker
You are right. Thanks for pointing that out.
Really? Then what is the 'moral clarity' argument all about?
And why has he gone from criticizing Israeli responses to
terrorism to admitting Israel has a right to defend herself?
And why does 'if you're not with us you're against us' not
apply to the country which provided at least 15 of the
suicide killers of the WTC, the country who subsidizes the
families of suicide killers in Israel?
If Arab countries were to "pounce" on Israel, they would be totally destroyed in a matter of days! And it wouldn't be the first time either! Thats why they support the terror war against Israel, they don't have to expose their weak and inferior militaries to the superior IDF forces and certain defeat! But of course Powell and our President tie the hands of Israel so the Pali terror campaign continues.
It is quite possible that Iraq has WMD already and the closest target, the most bang for it's buck, is Israel. Getting a handle on how to defend against this and locating all the launch sites might be one thing that is causing Israel to hold back.
The ultimate goal has not changed. Intermediate tactics may seem confusing, but part of the art of war is deception of the enemy.
I would also point out to you that bin Laden's radicals want to overthrow the Saudi regime as well, instituting their own super-Islamacist state. Yes, there were quite a few hijackers who were Saudi nationals. This does not mean that the prince sent them over here. The Saudis have been buying off these nut-cases for many years, and their stupid policy has risen up to bite them, with tragic consequences for people in the US.
The idea here, I believe, is to help the Saudis get rid of these nut cases by marginalizing them while making the Saudi royal family look like strong leaders. This is to our advantage, because if the royal family is gone, what will fill the void will be a huge headache to the entire world.
It is also helpful to understand that from day one, President Bush said he would divide the enemy. That includes the Arab world, who is being forced to choose between standing with the civilized world and standing with the rogue states. It is not to our advantage to unite the entire Arab world in a war with us. We would win, but the cost in lives would be enormous, and it would not be a wise leader who advocated such a reckless position.
Now, I have given you some points to consider, which I think are at least as well-informed as the critics of President Bush. I hope you will consider them.
That is an interesting thought. I wonder
how many leftists said the same thing
before the dissolution of the USSR?
A better analogy would be when Carter picked and whined at the Shah of Iran, eventually causing his downfall by insisting he allow Khomeni to return from France. The resulting uproar and street riots caused the fall of the Shah, and Iran was plunged into the 14th century politically.
Iran then became one of the terrorist-supporting states.
So, if you can think of an ALTERNATIVE to the royal family that would not be a bigger pain in the neck, please let me know. I can't think of any scenario which would not cause more trouble.
All these issues cannot be taken separately; they must be looked at in view of the total picture. Bush is focusing on what he considers the most critical issues, not wasting his time on those that aren't strategic. I trust him to do the right thing. I didn't feel that way about Bubba.
If this is the case then why not allow Israel to do as they like, since they are the target? I don't think it is true, since it would be in both Israels and the US's interest to announce it to the whole world if it were. However if Israel waits long enough it certainly could become true, at which point a victory will be much more costly in terms of lives lost than if it were fought now. Every extra day gives not only Iraq, but Syria, and Iran more time to develop weapons of mass destruction.
"The idea here, I believe, is to help the Saudis get rid of these nut cases by marginalizing them while making the Saudi royal family look like strong leaders. "
This merely postpones the inevitable. The Saudi royal family has encouraged the form of radical religion that caused 9-11. Don't expect them to change overnight and oppose it. The Saudis cannot get rid of the "nut cases". Why? Because 95% of the Saudi population supports the "nut cases". Which if you think about it makes just about the entire Saudi population "nut cases" themselves. The Saudi people are going to be our enemys no matter what the US does or dosn't do. It is out of our hands. We are simply the wrong religion, and perhaps more importantly the wrong culture.
"It is also helpful to understand that from day one, President Bush said he would divide the enemy. That includes the Arab world, who is being forced to choose between standing with the civilized world and standing with the rogue states."
Who is the more divided, the Arab world or the Western world? Who exactly is dividing who with these appeasement strategies? It has been shown repeatedly that the Arab street respects power, but appeasement makes them bolder.
We are doing them no favors by pretending to be on their side. Why else would a weaker culture attack a stronger one? It is because we have shown by our appeasement that they can get away with it. If we continue, they may attack for real, and the result will be far bloodier than if we deal with them now.
The fact that they have been so successful at dividing the West may prove that they are right after all, and that they are the stronger culture. I will grant you one point for delay which you actually didn't make. We may have to wait untill something truely terrible happens, something far worse than 9-11, in order to unite the Western world. Hopefully by then it will not be too late.
Perhaps they ARE doing what they like. They are free to ignore us, you know. They are a sovereign nation. In addition, I don't see a total withdrawal yet from all areas, and I see Arafat losing influence over the last few days.
The fact that they have been so successful at dividing the West may prove that they are right after all, and that they are the stronger culture.
This is a defeatest statement. In other words, because not everyone in the West agrees on tactics, we are to throw in the towel? Tyranny by the minority? That is balderdash. And to say that this may prove that their culture is stronger is really beyond the pale.
The Muslim world HAS been divided, and more fractures appear each week. Please read the stories on Arafat's waning influence, or note that the Pakistanis have moved to our side in the war. Turkey supports us, and Egypt stood against an oil embargo, as did Kuwait and the Saudis.
The fractures begin slowly, with seemingly modest issues. But fractures will widen if they are properly encouraged.
So I do not concede your points, and in fact I think your last point especially was so defeatist as to be laughable.
First of all, although I think that self-government is good, it requires at least some sort of experience in running it, which that country doesn't have. I would think a constitutional monarchy would be a good start, but you must remember that the country runs on Islamic law, and unlike Turkey, would almost find it impossible to have a regular election. Second, Islam itself does not lend itself to disagreement, and in a country where Islam is the law it is very difficult to have dissent.
So you have said what type of government you would like them to have, but WHO would fill the void? That is the question the US must be concerned with. It is quite possible that they would elect bin Laden....then where would you be?
I confess. I don't see the difference. Are they not
Isamacists now? And does all this really outweigh
their supplying the WTC killers, and continued
funding of terrorism? If they aren't with us, and
aren't against us....where are they? :)
So three wolves and a lamb should vote for what's on the dinner plate tonight?
Baaaaaaaaa!!!!
Absolutely not, but it is a fact appeasement has never worked anytime it has ever been tried. All it ever does is make the side that offers it weaker and the side that accepts it stronger, until the balance of power has been tipped and the inevitable happen. If we can't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
Here is a message from our friends the Saudis you might be interested in. Saudi Government Daily: "You [the U.S.] Will Vanish, But We Will Remain"
OH absolutely, they are free to ignore the most powerful nation on earth, AND only ally. /sarcasm
The US is the one country on earth that they cannot afford to offend under any circumstances. If you believe they can than that is laughable!
Are you kidding? Remember Afganistan?
Netanyahu didn't say anything specifically about his meeting with Bush, but he praised him for his 'bold, courageous leadership' and his 'moral clarity.' He said that he is confident that the President is up to the task, and that we will win the battle against terrorism.
It was unqualified support and respect for the President.
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.