WAR - WITH NO ARMEY?

New York Post ^ | Aug 12, 2002 | Editorial

[The Raven]

The soon-to-retire Texan, a former economics professor, has combined a folksy charm with a consistent and passionate defense of tax cuts and limited government.

In 1994, he was a chief architect of the Contract With America, which helped Republicans win control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

[DoughtyOne]

I think you guys make some interesting comments, some of which I agree with. Where does the global community draw the line at leadership decapitation? Today Saddam, tomorrow a conservative leader-elect that opposes rampant immigration of foreign nationals flooding across his nation. And no I'm not talking about the U.S.

What if that French candidate had made it? Sooner or later he or another guy will be elected in Europe. Then what? If we start taking out leaders because of what they might do, we're treading on dangerous ground IMO.

All it takes is for the ICC to rule a leader a violater of human rights. Bingo time to remove him. NATO steps in and removes the culprit.

We need to do better than simply saying Saddam is a bad guy. All sorts of people can be deemed "a bad guy". Today "our" definition. Tomorrow, "someone elses".

[Dane]

Why? What has changed. Tell me what it is, and I may agree. Don't tell me and I haven't any reason to accept that Hussein must go at this moment.

Good gravy, I want to support our nation's efforts. Give me a reason to. Is that too much to ask?

IOW, please pander to me. I(Doughty) don't care that saddam is a dangerous person, I (Doughty) must be pandered to 24 hours a day to feel important.

[DoughtyOne]

There's one other issue that I think is worthy of consideration. The EU and it's members are woosies. They are always reluctant to back us. IMO it might just be a good idea to let Hussein flex his muscles until the EU get's bitten. Perhaps they'll get a little religion when he does.

[DoughtyOne]

Hi Dane. Good morning.

[The Raven]

Where does the global community draw the line at leadership decapitation?

That's easy. Never.

Their attitude is squarely in line with what Henry Kissinger observed at the time of the controversial American intervention in Grenada in 1983: it is not that the Europeans so much wanted America to fail, but that they would rather it did not try to do anything in the first place. ref

Remember when Hitler first started sword rattling - the Jews in England were apologizing for him.

[this_ol_patriot]

There is that.

About the only one who hasn't shown his hand yet is G.W. but he has a darn good idea what hands the rest of the world is holding.

*Mumbles something about Texas and poker players.*

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments.

[DoughtyOne]

I would submit that if we attack Iraq without making the case for it, we're going to see Europe damn us for years to come. That's one more reason why I've got no stomach for it. I'm getting quite weary of digging them out.

I would "fix" immigration, visas et al, then let the middle-east implode on it's own.

Thanks for the comments.

[LibWhacker]

I'm with you. But I think it sets a good precedent. We simply cannot allow madmen to possess WMD. At least the men running the Kremlin during the cold war behaved rationally when it came to annihilating the rest of the human race -- and being annihilated themselves. But guys like Saddam . . . we know are incapable of behaving rationally in that regard. Unfortunately, as nukes become easier to acquire in the future, I'm afraid we're going to face this situation with ever more frequency. I just hope we don't try to formalize/codify the procedure as to when we should act. We'll just have to play it by ear.

Like it or not, as much as we've rightfully resisted it, we have finally, officially, formally, against our will, been promoted to the world's policeman.

[The Raven]

>>I would submit that if we attack Iraq ...

Earth to DoughtyOne. There are no "ifs" The train has left the station.

[Wait4Truth]

The media is trying to push President Bush to show his hand earlier than he wants to. Bush is not taking the bait. If there's one thing I've seen in Bush, it's that he let's the talkers talk, the spinners spin, the world argue...he finds out who his friends are - who his enemies are - and then he moves. He will make his case and it will be on HIS timetable, not that of the media. To me it seems like many freepers are falling into the media trap of saying Bush has not made his case. He hasn't made it on THEIR timetable - he'll make it when the time is right.

[Molly Pitcher]

I agree with both of you.

As yet the Pres. hasn't made the case, but he will at the right time, and it will be a convincing argument for all but the 10% or less hardcore leftist loonies.

The fact is we can't wait for one such as Saddam to launch his WMDs, and THEN respond.

Too late.

And congrats to everyone for having discussion with disagreements, especially where Bush is concerned, but no name-calling.

[Maceman]

I am neither convinced that we had a clear mandate in Kosovo,

What we did in Kosovo under Bill Wag-the-Dog Clinton was a flat-out war crime. Where were all the outraged media reports about civilian casualties when we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, destroying its infrastructure and killing its people?

[cousair]

I agree with you. There are days when I do the same thing. I love Dick Armey and don't always understand his thinking, but on this one I know in my heart that Saddam must go!! If he doesn't, we can look for an incoming almost anytime.

[ohioman]

Don't worry. Much greater men than the wussies on this thread will be in Iraq (and other places eventually) defending our country against the Militant Muslim menace. It's so sad to see the lowly scrawl of the pacifist's creed so prevalent at FR.

[Zviadist]

Armey's 100 percent right. It's funny to see so many hardcore pro-party Republicans rush to beat up on other leading Republicans if they speak out against the disastrous war. All that "party first" nonsense is just that. The real agenda is to send other people off to an unnecessary and economy-busting war, the "pro-party" stuff is just camoflauge -- and reactions like on this thread just underscore that.

[Zviadist]

What I believe is that American spies within Saddam's inner circle, probably one of his family, have discovered that he plans to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US and set it off. This has been communicated through the CIA to the President.

What you believe? So...we are to turn over our foreign policy and matters of thousands of lives to people who believe something or other? Good grief, two decades of relativism at our universities have really taken their toll. People no longer believe that truth can be objectively quantifiable, but rather that all is relative and what passes as "truth" is just the product of subjective belief systems. Unbelievable. The American brain has been turned to jelly.

[Zviadist]

We simply cannot allow madmen to possess WMD.

So...are you lining up for the invasion of China?

[Zviadist]

But guys like Saddam . . . we know are incapable of behaving rationally in that regard.

This is such an absurd argument, and one that simply ignores the facts. If indeed Saddam has had WMD since 1991, as the warhawks want us to believe, why is it that he has not used them? Could it be that he is indeed -- like most dictators -- a survivor, who wants to stay in power? Period. If indeed he has had these for years, the fact that he has not used them suggest that he is more "rational" than the warhawks give him credit for. If not, then he simply does not have them. Either way, the war party is wrong.

[Free the USA]

By having a Republican play the role of opposition it cuts the Democrats out and prevents the possibility of a Democrat advantage in the upcoming elections. Also it will be easier to rally the opposition to support the war when it comes.