CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER?NOT

Long Cut: Funny you should provide a link to the "Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing Against the War on Terrorism" thread. I was just there right before I came to this thread, then I read raysol's post and almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Let's see, from the "Quick and Dirty Guide" raysol used: "There's No Reason to Bomb Saddam", "Keep Moving That Goalpost", "War For Oil", "We'll Destabilize the Middle-East", and "Remember Who the Real Enemies Are". And, SBeck provided us with a continuous "Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For" argument.

Raysol and SBeck: I suggest you check out the link that Long Cut provided in post #13. I think it could help you. At the very least it would provide you with more ammo, because you omitted several of the "Quick and Dirty" points. You forgot: "Show Me Osama's Corpse", "It's About the Ordinary People", "Insist That We Give Inspections a Chance", etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I'm just trying to help, you know. That's me. Helpful.

I have said this more than once in this endless thread, but I will say it again... you cannot look at this the same way that we looked at the Soviets or the Chinese. If they attacked it would be obvious that they attacked and we could immolate a couple of their cities in response.

But Saddam, the modern day Hitler, could potentially attack us with these devastating weapons without us being able to trace it back to him, thereby making it exceedingly difficult to "destroy the attacker". So what we have here are people, potentially you included, who seem willing to take the risk of untold American lives in order to seem statesman-like, to be Gandhi up front who will transform into Patton when outwardly and obviously attacked. The issue there is what would transpire in between and personal judgements of whether it is worth it.

I would submit that this exceedingly self-contratulatory desire to be able to say "we showed restraint" is exactly the wrong way to approach this. I think that it shows a lack of a real depth of understanding of what would have to happen to more Moms and Dads and Sons and Daughters in order to go from "Now, Saddam, put that down..." to "Die Motherf---er!" I think that it is pathetically naive.

And one more thing: if we do the feel-good, "kumbaya"-singing approach now, then get attacked again in some horrible way with weapons that likely originated in Iraq, it wil NOT have been worth it, and you "go it slow" people will be the first to be on the president like white on rice, saying that he should have acted more aggressively. No, we must destroy that bastard and any others both who hate us enough to act and are producing WMDs.

let's just sit here and wait for another Sept 11th!

If we expend all our resources on invading Iraq while we leave our borders wide open, then we will be inviting another 9/11. If we were going after those responsible for 9/11, we'd deport all Muslims and bomb Mecca and Medina, or maybe invade Saudi Arabia. We are going after Iraq because Bush is obsessed with it and presidents are always popular during wars.

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.