Skip to comments.
Anti-war Stance Is Right, Not Left
The New American (John Birch Society) ^
| February 6, 2006
| Gary Benoit
Posted on 03/28/2006 10:28:47 AM PST by Irontank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
The notion that the American government (1) can ever "create" a stable, democratic society...or indeed any society, (2) should send American troops to enforce UN resolutions, (3) should send American troops to "liberate" foreigners and either "make the world safe for democracy" (the leftist Woodrow Wilson) or "end tyranny in the world" (the conservative?? George Bush) is the type of idealistic, naive, internationalist notion more characteristic of those on the political left than those on the right
1
posted on
03/28/2006 10:28:48 AM PST
by
Irontank
To: Irontank
I didn't know the John Birch Society was still around. They attracted my interest years ago only to lose me with society founder Welch's indictment of Ike as a "conscious dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy."
2
posted on
03/28/2006 10:33:26 AM PST
by
luvbach1
(Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
To: Irontank
Pulling up a chair.
This should be interesting.
To: GrandEagle
To: eyespysomething
I'll grab the drinks.....
To: Irontank
The author seems to believe there was some form required in a declaration of war which simply does not exist. Congress declared war as much as it needs to.
America sends troops to support UN resolutions WHEN it wants to. But you probably know that though pretending not to.
People too dumb to realize that the President has done what he did in order to make America safer don't have much of a clue wrt National Interests, Foreign Policy or much else I warrant.
6
posted on
03/28/2006 10:40:46 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
To: Irontank
I had many of the same opinions as expressed in this article...before 9/11.
As a pragmatic conservative, I don't believe in solving problems by putting "band-aids" on them, as liberals often do. After 9/11, I thought to myself, "What is the solution here? Kill those who attacked us?"
Most of them are dead.
"Kill or capture those behind the attack? That's done, and being done.
"Take out the governments supporting them?"
That's done to the primary government involved, and to the greatest threat in the Middle East. Saddam.
So, problem solved? Nope. The terrorists will still propagate; they'll still attack us.
Islamic Fundamentalism and the terrorists it breeds are all over the world. The root causes of the 9/11 attacks are much deeper than
There must be fundamental change in the Middle East and the Islamic World. Democracy is the only solution. Planting 150,000 American troops right smack in the middle of the Islamic world is the first step to major change.
It will take many years, even decades, to make these changes. It will not be easy, but it is the only solution. We can't build a fence around our country or screen every shipment. We can't pick and choose which front to fight on...we have to fight on all of them. Eventually, the free world must participate in the fight or suffer the consequences, which is the death of their societies.
The President had been consistent on the variety of reasons we went into Iraq. WMD's was just one of them. This battle has just begun.
7
posted on
03/28/2006 10:46:38 AM PST
by
rightinthemiddle
(Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
To: Irontank
Extreme right spectrum politics are often tainted by obsession with "purity", constitutional or otherwise. Also, isolationist and paranoid tendencies are common. John Birchers don't see that the U.S. should use the U.N. when it aligns with our national interests or that "nation building" may coincide with self-preservation. It's "either" "or" for those in the zero sum game. In fact, it seems that the political spectrum in not linear, but parabolic, with its far reaches hard to differentiate. Is there really a great difference between Hitler and Stalin? The nuance of fascism vs. totalitarian Communism is somewhat esoteric.
To: Irontank
It's a quagmire. The Birchers and Cindy Sheehan agree.
9
posted on
03/28/2006 10:52:44 AM PST
by
pissant
To: Irontank
Whatever. I would give a more thoughtful response if I thought it would make any difference. But, since the author doesn't pay any attention or care about history, or the future for that matter, here is a link to a web site with some basic information he might have forgotten:
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
10
posted on
03/28/2006 10:53:00 AM PST
by
faq
To: Irontank
Countries that mind their own business are less likely to be attacked than those that intervene in other countries affairs, particularly when those interventions come to be viewed as unwanted occupations.
We also export our culture. We can mind our own business, and we will still get hit.
How does the anti-war right propose to deal with that?
11
posted on
03/28/2006 10:53:21 AM PST
by
A Balrog of Morgoth
(With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
To: Irontank
The notion that the American government (1) can ever "create" a stable, democratic society...or indeed any society
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Italy
Those all seem pretty stable to me, and we spent a heck of alot more of our blood and treasure to remake those places then we ever will in Iraq.
12
posted on
03/28/2006 10:56:22 AM PST
by
A Balrog of Morgoth
(With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
People too dumb to realize that the President has done what he did in order to make America safer don't have much of a clue wrt National Interests, Foreign Policy or much else I warrant
Well lets see...in 1998, David Wurmser, who would become Dick Cheney's Mideast Advisor, wrote a policy paper entitled "Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant"...in it he argues that, contrary to the claims that Saddam was a menace threatening the US...the "next Hitler"...Iraq was a crumbling state...the collapse of Saddam's regime was inevitable...the paper argues that intervention by Israel and the US can remake Iraq and the mideast in a way that will benefit the Hashemites and prevent Iran and Syria from benefitting from Iraq's collapse
Of course, the best laid plans of egghead intellectuals...Iran has no doubt been strengthened on the basis of the most recent election in Iraq
Meanwhile...what happened that Saddam went from a crumbling petty tyrant in 1998 to the next Hitler by 2002? Here is a good rule to follow...don't believe much of what your government tells you...they're usually lying and up to no good
Crumbling States
13
posted on
03/28/2006 10:58:12 AM PST
by
Irontank
(Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
To: Irontank
1) So far, we've made excellent progress in Afghanistan, and laid a good foundation in Iraq judging by the very higher voter turnout.
2) You may recall that the UN was screaming "NO!" at the top of its global-socialist lungs, when our military headed into Iraq. That's not my idea of being of UN puppet or enforcer.
3) Promoting stability in foreign countries is promoting stability here. Exploding populations of desperate people in foreign countries don't just stay there.
To: GrandEagle
I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa...
15
posted on
03/28/2006 11:01:00 AM PST
by
alarm rider
(Irritating leftists as often as is humanly possible....)
To: pissant
What quagmire? Loopy agrees with loopy.
To: pissant
LOL, and Saddam and Son's defense team agrees.
To: alarm rider
I don't have much of an appetite...
18
posted on
03/28/2006 11:07:12 AM PST
by
Philistone
(Turning lead into gold...)
To: Irontank
Even a cursory glance at history would show that it is often the "crumbling states" which are the greatest danger.
Somalia was a crumbling state which allowed Osama to take refuge and arm the warlords who eventually caused Blackhawk Down. Afghanistan was a crumbling state which allowed Osama to worm his way in and establish training camps for al Queda. Iraq was the refuge for al Queda when it was driven out of Afghanistan. Austro-Hungary was a crumbling state which brought us WWI. Russia was a crumbling state which brought us the Soviet Union. China was a crumbling state which brought us Red China. Thus your thesis is shot full of holes.
But I guess great thinkers see no danger in al Queda setting up shop in Iraq or taking it over completely thereby gaining enormous oil revenues.
It is completely delusional to believe Iran profited or was happy to see the recent elections in Iraq. The last thing it wants to see is a unified and prosperous Iraq.
Governments do not always lie and it was no lie that Iraq posed a danger to the region and to us. It is also no lie to claim that Iraq was part of the first WTC attack or that there were Iraqis involved in the OKC bombing.
Fortunately we have a President who was willing to throw down the gauntlet and declare that terrorists would not be safe anywhere including Iraq.
19
posted on
03/28/2006 11:12:44 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
To: Irontank
For a group that was able to focus on the existential threat to America from the ideology of Communism in the Cold War, they seem remarkably insouciant about our current worldwide struggle with the Islamist terror ideology.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson