Posted on 09/11/2002 3:32:38 PM PDT by traditionalist
The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire. What many saw as a horrific atrocity and tragedy, they saw instantly as an opportunity to achieve U.S. hegemony over an alienated Islamic world.
President Bush initially directed America's righteous wrath and military power at al-Qaida. But in his "axis-of-evil" address, he signed on to the War Party's agenda.
What lies ahead? When America invades Iraq, it will have to destroy Saddam and all his weapons of mass destruction. Else, the war will have been a failure. And to ensure destruction of those weapons, we must occupy Iraq. If you would see what follows, pull out a map.
With Americans controlling Iraq, Syria is virtually surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, U.S. power to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. Syrian President Assad will be forced to pull his army out of Lebanon, leaving Israel free to reinvade Lebanon to settle accounts with Hezbollah.
Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah.
Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open – to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction.
This is the vision that enthralls the War Party – "World War IV," as they call it – a series of "cakewalks," short sharp wars on Iraq, Syria and Iran to eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat to us and Israel for generations.
No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well.
Anyone who believes America can finish Saddam and go home deceives himself. With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran. U.S. troops will have to remain to hold Iraq together, to find and destroy those weapons, to democratize the regime, and to deter Iran from biting off a chunk and dominating the Gulf.
Recall: After we crushed Germany and Japan in World War II, both were powerless to reassume their historic roles of containing Russia and China. So, America, at a cost of 100,000 dead in Vietnam and Korea, had to assume those roles. With Iraq in ruins, America will have to assume the permanent role of Policeman of the Persian Gulf.
But is this not a splendid vision, asks the War Party. After all, is this not America's day in the sun, her moment in history? And is not the crushing of Islamism and the modernization of the Arab world a cause worthy of a superpower's investment of considerable treasure and blood?
What is wrong with the War Party's vision?
Just this: Pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will be shaken to their foundations by the cataclysm unleashed as Americans smash Iraq, while Israelis crush Palestinians. Nor is Iran likely to passively await encirclement. Terror attacks seem certain. Nor is a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of believers from Morocco to Indonesia likely to welcome infidel America and Israel dictating the destiny of the Muslim world.
As for the pro-American regimes in Kabul and Pakistan, they are but one bullet away from becoming anti-American. And should the Royal House of Saud come crashing down, as the War Party ardently hopes, do they seriously believe a Vermont-style democracy will arise?
Since Desert Storm, America has chopped its fleets, air wings and ground troops by near 50 percent, while adding military commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. Invading and occupying Iraq will require hundreds of thousands of more troops.
We are running out of army. And while Americans have shown they will back wars fought with no conscripts and few casualties, the day is not far off when they will be asked to draft their sons to fight for empire, and many of those sons will not be coming home. That day, Americans will tell us whether they really wish to pay the blood tax that is the price of policing the War Party's empire.
I'm curious as to what translation you have. All four translations of my paralell Bible cut off Matthew after chapter 28. Book of Mormon?
Seriously though, if your reference is to Matt 5: 38-42, I would state that this is a great principle for individual followers of Christ; bad policy for a national government charged with the explicit duty of protecting its citizens.
I must not have listened to the "right" Art Bell shows. His guests have ALWAYS struck me as being 42 virgins, living in Mom's attic, that have been to one too many StarTrek conventions and that have the tin foil applied too tightly...
But, your mileage may vary.
I'm twenty-five years old and readily understand the potential consequences of facing our enemies. Likewise, I understand the consequences of my future children if we don't do it here and now. What would Mr. Buchanan propose we do otherwise? Should we let Hitler, Jr. and his cohorts rise in power so that we have to sacrifice more of our children down the road?
And, how will the next generation of "even greater liberalism", courtesy of our brain-washed school system, react to such a call to duty? If we don't do it now, the decline of America is sure to set in. I hate to say it, but I don't believe we or I have much of a choice at this time. The reasons our enemies hate us no longer matter. We've been attacked and all I can focus on is here and now.
One of my ancestors was a crucial member of the Benedictine Revolution, quite possibly the first revolt against the British powers in America (or so Thomas Jefferson said). Several of my ancestors fought on both sides of the civil war, many for the Union. My great grandfather stormed Normandy and took part in Europe's liberation from the Nazis. My father spied on the Soviets during the Vietname era. If it's my turn to do my part for my country, so be it.
I cannot and will not lay on my death bed knowing that I sold my chidren and future generations out for my own selfishness and salvation. The human race has always been less than perfect and regime and regime of "evil" has risen to the top. The difference in the twenty-first century is that this time we can recognize it (based on what history has taught us) before it becomes a major threat and rid the world of its cancer before long-term disaster.
So, Mr. Buchanan. Instead of whining, give us a better solution. I'm sick of people complaining and not offering a better perspective or solution. People who can't offer a solution are just offering an agenda. And agendas don't do anything for our people in this time of need.
Now what's the problem?
Yes, his best aircraft, which are useless when put up against F-16's, F-14's, or F-18's. By modern standards obsolete.
Even still, it is a false analogy. Saddam sent them to Iran because he knew that the US airforce would utterly destroy them. If Iran had them, at least there was a chance that he might get them back later. Plus they did not strengthen Iran by all that much. Iran already had a better airforce, equipped with US planes purchased during the time of the Shah. Finally, Iran knows Iraq has WMD, so an attack from Iran is unlikely in any event. Giving weapons to Al Qaeda is in no way comparable.
Tell me, how exactly is toppling Saddam going to help us get Al Qaeda if they are in a part of the country not controlled by Saddam?
PJB, as usual, is directly on target with his analysis.
One of the questions that is diligently being avoided by the administration as they wade into this quagmire, is what happens to Iraq when Saddam Hussein is topple? Who will be the useful idiot installed in the puppet government? Who will be the Imelda Marcos of Baghdad and how many pairs of shoes will she buy?
All that will happen if we actually do invade and occupy Iraq is that we will become the focal point of unified hostility for the Muslim world. (as if we aren't already.)
Frankly, I have no love for Saddam Hussein. And if it's necessary to wipe him out to defend our National Security, I have no problems with vaporizing Baghdad in a nuclear plasma. Let the barbaric heathens rush into the vacuum and fight among themselves to claim and rebuild the territory. But keep us out of trying to "liberate" Iraq and engaging in "nation building". Been there, tried that many, many times. It doesn't work. Only leads to greater hostilities.
I'll give you a better solution. Keep Saddam contained and focus our efforts on destroying Al Qaeda cells.
This PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not paying attention AND forcing evidence that is before you through an ideological filter.
What did the President say about nations who harbor terrorists? Al Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ of our citizens on our own soil, yet you want to pick a nit over where in Iraq these terrorists are?
I don't think so.
Iraq is harboring these terrorists, and working in a direct violation of the resolutions that Hussein himself signed after the Gulf War. So toppling Saddam is a twofer.
But in the end, your objections don't, and won't, matter.
The President said, "Let's roll." And we're going to roll. Like it or not. He laid out the evidence against Saddam Hussein before the entire world.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Get ready.
To me they are one in the same. After all, Saddham did have a Boeing Commercial Airline Fuselage in Baghdad and had Al Qaeda operatives, including Mohammad Atta, actively training and using the fuselage to prepare for the attacks in America. This....is evidence that sleeper cells use and exist in Iraq.
Plus, I'm sure the advent of nuclear capabilities has a lot to do with "when" we will actually take to their soil. This, of course, is not public knowledge and probably will never be more than speculation.
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.