Posted on 03/30/2003 12:36:24 PM PST by FreepnDeacn
I didn't say your remarks were juvenile, but referred to a general trend in which many Freepers villify whoever might object to a holy writ of Dubya and Rumsfeld. You only inferred that I was criticizing you specifically.
But your question is fair, so I've reviewed the thread to identify the specific remarks which I believe added nothing to anyone's understanding of the issue at hand. They are as follows:
"Hackworthless is yaesterday's news. He's gone over to the dark side."
"Hack is a great example of a vain contrarian."
"If Hackup is on Hannity Monday, I'm going to be very upset. This guy is definitely losing his mind."
"He is about as relevant as a WWI vet critiquing the Korean War, and wondering why there aren't any horse cavalry units being deployed."
Though mild by recent standards, these types of ad hominem attacks have become typical on FreeRepublic, popping up every time certain individuals or publications are mentioned. Such behavior adds nothing to adult conversation, and has served only to silence any thoughtful discussion of the real issues involved in those threads. There is plenty of venom here toward Hackworth for daring to be a skunk at the garden party, but where is the principled disagreement on the issues he raises?
As I said earlier, while I might not agree with Hackworth's every analysis, I would never totally disregard an experienced and knowledgable source. Discussion and disagreement on vital issues is a very healthy thing.
>>>You only inferred that I was criticizing you specifically.
For obvious and relevent reasons.
That may be, but there are plenty more on the way. If all of them had come in at the same time, the logistics would have been a nightmare!
Remember, the 4th got delayed because the Turks got cold feet. It just meant our guys had to 'go around'. They're gonna get there.
And as the guy said, right now the F-18s are pounding the Republican Guard before our guys get ahold of them!
Deal with it.
Pound it back into the 7th century;
Are they much past that anyway?
destroy all their weapons, plants, and stockpiles--and move on. We have several other islamic terror states to destroy.
I'm thinking we'd be wise to stop with one. Get a democratically-elected government in there, fund it well, and take advantage of Iraq's secularism and modernity to spread the message. We follow your course, and we may as well have just stayed home in the first place. It might feel good to pound those SOBs up front, but the long-term effects are problematic.
Snidely
"Either you are with us or you are against us." Which are you?
News flash: The United States is at war. A war for its existence and for the future of Civilization on this planet. Eventually we shall have to deal with all of the terror-supporting states, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, et al. We may as well get used to it and get it over with.
--Boris
"Either you are with us or you are against us." Which are you?
I'm with serious people, who understand the problem we face and are a bit more creative with solutions than "bomb the hell out of them." "With us or against us" is meaningless crap.
Liberating Iraq is the right thing to do, without question. Spreading the war is more a practical issue than anything...years and years of war will ruin us financially as well as politically and at this point isn't necessarily the best way to ultimately solve the problem. Killing terrorists makes them stop, but you needn't have all-out war to do it.
News flash: The United States is at war.
No $hit? Have the media been informed?
A war for its existence and for the future of Civilization on this planet. Eventually we shall have to deal with all of the terror-supporting states, including Saudi Arabia,
Kill the terrorists and the Saudis won't have to pay 'em off to maintain power.
Libya,
Small potatoes, but an oddity like Iraq - a secularist dictatorship.
Iran,
Time will solve that problem. Install a actual, democratically-elected, pluralistic regime in Iraq, and the already-burgeoning democratic movement in Iran will gain power on its own. You don't want to invade big, populous, mountainous countries with a tendency towards radicalism if you can avoid it.
Pakistan, et al.
You plan on leading an armored column into that country? It's a hell of a lot different theatre than Iraq. Larger, much better armed, with a much higher population. Picture Afghanistan, but worse.
Snidely
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.