Why We Must Fight

NRO (National Review Online) ^ | 03/11/2003 | William J. Bennett

[hchutch]

Your reasoning is little different than that of Nancy Pelosi or Ramsey Clark. Blame America First, is that it?

[JohnGalt]

Actually, it appears you are the Wilsonian liberal here; Pelosi and Clark are just playing politics, if a D was in charge, just think, you would all be in agreement!

[hchutch]

You're going back to the strawman of a "Wilsonian liberal" to duck the fact that the policy you advocate is nothing but appeasement, which was tried before, and which has failed before. There is no other word for it.

[JohnGalt]

Yes, it was tried by Reagan against the Soviet Union and it worked very well.

You are commenting on 'appeasement' as a reference to England and Frances relationship with Germany in the 1930s and yet you have already revealed on this thread that you know nothing about Munich.

I will bookmark this thread so that I can remind you that everytime you mention appeasement or make some reference to the 1930s, I can prove that you know nothing of what you are talking about.

[JohnGalt]

I call it deterence but if you wish to use a loaded term, fine, appeasment. Okay...you are still a Wilsonian liberal; why is so important for you to maintain the conservative title?

[hchutch]

Oh, and I will bookmark it as well, so your strawman claims of "Wilsonian liberal" are made equally clear.

You're using a straw man argument to distract people from the cold, hard truth that you are advocating appeasement. It is NOT what Reagan practiced by a long shot. Reagan rolled the Soviets back and waged what was, in essence, an undeclared economic war against the Soviets.

You're ducking the truth, and that does not reflect well on your position. Go ahead and try, and your "Wilsonian liberal" canard will be just as apparent.

[JohnGalt]

Can you explain what a straw man argument is?

Appeasement is a slander; deterrence is the word I prefer and Reagan practiced exactly that.

You knowledge, or lack there of, what happened at Munich and the months after reveal that you know very little about a word that you toss around. I suggest you turn off Fox News and read book, but what's the point, really?

[hchutch]

But what is advocated by Libertarians is NOT deterrence. At the very least, it lets Saddam get away with defying the terms of the cease-fire signed in 1991. That's called appeasement in my book. Your efforts to paint it as deterrence are about as credible as Clinton's efforts to redefine the word "is" were in 1998.

Furthermore, you claim no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Secretary of State Powell outlined meetings that occured last month. Which, of course, leads us to that little chat in Prague between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al-Ani.

The Czechs have stood by their claims that the meeting occured - and have strongly rebutted efforts by variuous media outlets, including the New York Times, to discredit the reports of that meeting.

Then, there is this place called Salman Pak, where there was a 707 used to train hijackers. Defectors reported the methods taught were similar to those reportedly used by the al-Qaeda hijacking teams on 9/11. Coincidence? I'm not willing to take the chance that it is. There are too many coincidences. Too many American lives are at stake if we make a bad guess.

Deterrence has not worked - it never did. Rolling back the state sponsors of terrorism will work, which is what Reagan did to the Soviets. He did not use deterrence. He took the offensive. He took them down before they could take us down. His objective was victory, not deterrence.

You, sir, do not understand what Reagan did. You do not understand what must be done now, or you lack the will to see it through. That's fine by me. Thankfully, people who DO know what MUST be done are in charge, and thankfully, the President listened to them, and not folks like you.

Truth is a defense to charges of slander. And calling your polict stance appeasement is the truth.

[JohnGalt]

If you are privy to evidence that would pass the indictment threshold, please get it to the CIA ASAP. Otherwise its just conjecture of the grassy knoll, Vince Foster kind. Sexy and intriguing, certianly worth investigating, but not really something you go to war over.

So violating a UN treaty is cause for war? Perhaps in the Wilsonian world view, but not mine.

Seeing that you toss the word appeasement around, but have proven that you know very little history, how can you use history to prove the success of a policy or not?

[hchutch]

What the hell is your standard of proof? Chicago vanishing in a mushroom cloud? Nerve gas attacks in NFL stadiums? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice until there is your naive mind deciudes it's time to do something?

[Daidalus]

Hey guys
I am a freshman who is writing her first high school research paper and I need some help. The topic I choose was why the United States should take military action in Iraq but I can't seem to find any articles that help give my opinions. I would need your suggestions by tomorrow (sorry...so if you could help me out that would be great! thanks