Skip to comments.If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?
Posted on 07/11/2007 12:05:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
To those of you against the war in Iraq, here is what you do not understand: Iraq is but one battle in the 60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror." Do you really want to leave Iraq and wait for the enemy and ideology that dropped the World Trade Center to grow into a much stronger, deadlier and efficient killing force? Did you not understand or believe President Bush in his address to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, when he said:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there ... This war will not be like other wars. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen ... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime ... But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows ... I ask for your ... patience in what will be a long struggle."
I consider myself an independent conservative who still thinks Bush & Cheney are much better than the last administration, if for no other reason than they are not adulterers and liars, and I believe character counts. Bush in my opinion is very honest, loyal, wise and walks with much integrity. He confounds his critics by doing what he says and saying what he does without wavering.
Bush did not steal the 2000 election! He won every time the votes were counted. History will show that the opposition tried to steal that election but failed. He did not lie about WMD in Iraq! His administration inherited an intelligence organization that made him believe WMD were being stockpiled in Iraq, along with a stated policy of regime change.
Bush is mature, acts responsibly and governs by doing what is right, living by the creed "the buck stops here." The previous administration governed by polls and acted like "the buck never got here." After 9/11, and with current knowledge of the day, had Bush not invaded Iraq, I believe he would have been acting as irresponsibly as the previous president.
I do not believe foreign policy under Bush has created more terrorists. On the contrary, it has revealed them.
I also think that a quick retreat from the Middle East would be the same as circling our wagons while waiting for 9/11-inspired attacks to continue here with greater and greater lethality by an enemy who will use WMD as soon as possible. Just try to imagine 9/11 with nukes.
If we choose defeat by giving up and retreating now, even if we are able to avoid attacks at home, we will be back in the Middle East within 10 years facing a much stronger and emboldened enemy with WMD at a cost to the United States in lives and resources hundreds of times higher than at present levels. Victory in the Middle East will be much less costly in a slow deliberate struggle over a long run and should be treated with the same patience that has kept us in Japan, Germany and Korea for more than 40 years.
You make a very powerful statement about the crisis of terrorism facing Western culture. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem to underestimate the dangers and difficulties looming over the next century. Western values of individualism and free expression would be obliterated under the fundamentalist regime sought by militant jihadists.
When you say that we are in a "60-plus-year ideological struggle," I assume you are thinking of the start of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union, allies against Hitler, became bitter rivals for world influence in a nuclear arms race that cast a terrifying shadow on anyone who grew up (as I did) in the 1950s.
The Soviet Union, a mammoth entity, would eventually disintegrate because of its economic inefficiencies as well as its restless constellation of striving regions and ethnicities. I must confess I don't see the logic in your conflating the ponderous bureaucratic labyrinth that was the Soviet Union with the small, agile, anarchic cells of terrorists who bedevil us now -- and who in fact humiliatingly drove the Soviet Union out of mountainous Afghanistan.
Similarly, I don't share your admiration of President Bush's post-9/11 speech about terrorism. His warning to the world -- "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" -- may please the ear with its syntactical symmetries, but it reveals a shockingly simplistic reading of geopolitics and indeed of life itself.
Since when did any nation -- even America, which I love -- become the dictatorial arbiter of morality? On what authority did President Bush, imperfectly advised by incompetent or mendacious underlings, divide the human race into those with us or against us? Who are we to demand or enforce such exclusivity and privilege? Why should our own self-interest take priority over that of all others? This is hubris, the excessive pride that both the Hebrew Bible and Greek tragedy warned against.
(7 more pages at site)
Last Trade: 1.35
Trade Time: Jul 2
Change: 0.00 (0.00%)
Prev Close: 1.35
Bid: 1.35 x 500
Ask: 1.39 x 500
1y Target Est: N/A
Day's Range: N/A - N/A
52Wk Range: 1.40 - 11.00
Avg Vol (3m): 6,501.54
Market Cap: 2.62M
P/E (ttm): N/A
EPS (ttm): -1.10
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A)
There really is no middle ground in this one.
Her reply is just more proof that the Rats are, in more then one way,living in fairyland.
Call it the War On Kufir if you prefer. Either way, we are in it whether we want to be or not.
Peace is when BOTH sides stop waging war.
The stock price on Salon would be doing great...if investing was like golf.
They get a financial boost every year or so by some well heeled Democrats.
I guess Salon is still a part of the 2008 election strategy.
“Who are we to demand or enforce such exclusivity and privilege? Why should our own self-interest take priority over that of all others?” Is this guy crazy? “Who are we”? We are the U.S. and we can make decisions for ourselves as to who we believe will support us and who won’t. It’s as simple as that. We are not and never been followers. We may not have always been right in what we do but we don’t, as American citizens, like other countries trying to tell us what we should or shouldn’t do. I agree with our President, or any of our Presidents, if they want to know who is with us or against us. Lay it out and tell it like it is. Force us to decide and we make make big mistakes but we will decide.
You assume incorrectly, you moron. Try 1947 and the formation of Israel, and the ongoing Jihad against the Jews as the start of the "60-plus-year idological struggle."
Yes, although I’d be more inclined to call it a 1,500 year ideological struggle, which began to heat up again 60 years ago.
“Some Democrats want to blame talk radio for this sorry development. But as a long-time fan of that medium, I beg to disagree. The major talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are dynamic personalities who balance attack and scorn with humor and creative improvisation. The mutterings among Democrat senators about a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine (to engineer political balance in broadcasting) should appall every defender of free speech. Talk radio is an art form like any other entertainment genre: Liberals must study and master it and build an audience from the bottom up.”
Didn’t Limbaugh read that on his show last week?
Since we do not use children and women as shields in combat areas
Since we do not behead captives
Since we do not extort UN monies for purchase of arms while citizens do without
Since we do not strap bombs to ourselves and walk into a crowded school yard
Since we do not intentionally drop poisonous bombs on our own or any people
Tell me when to stop......
We are BETTER THAN THEY ARE BECAUSE WE DO NOT/CANNOT DO WHAT THEY DO!!!!!!!
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” — may please the ear with its syntactical symmetries, but it reveals a shockingly simplistic reading of geopolitics”
What is it about this matter that they can’t get their minds around?
If you aren’t with us, you are with them. Simplistic. Very. Muzzlims keep things on the lowest common denominator. They aren’t capable of going beyond. If you aren’t muzzlim, they will convert you or kill you. Simple
Hey, Camille, much of life is simple: lions will eat you, simple. Fire will kill you, simple. Muzzlims will kill you, simple. You cannot negotiate with them, simple. They are a disease, .223 is the cure, simple.
Her complete ignorance of geopolitics is shocking.
Apparently Camille baby is ignorant of our history with this disease. It goes back beyond 60 years. She completely missed what Mr. Randall was saying. What is she wandering around in the Cold War past for? He was talking about our entanglement with muzzlims.
Hey, Camille, who did we fight in the Philippines circa 1920? Bet you don’t know.
The war is with islam. The battle field today is Iraq. Simple.
Yup, I’m just a dumb, uneducated Pollack farmer from the backwash of PA. Got no idea bout that geopolitic stuff.
But I can understand how simple this whole thing really is: Kill them before they kill us. And the fact that we can kill them somewhere other than my back yard, is a real bonus.
I cannot say we lose “For Good”, but your kids will eventually pay a terrible price for this failure.
It may not be immediate, or even 10 years out, but Radical ISlam will evenbtually have to be stopped.
The only question is how many millions of innocents will die because of it.
If this chick is one of the top 100 intellectuals, that doesn’t say much for intellectuals!...
The two most obvious examples are Japan and Vietnam.
We didn't leave Japan until they had a government that was willing and able to defend Japan and partner with the US in opposing radicalism and terrorism as tools to install tyranny over humans.
We did leave Vietnam and Congress failed to support and resupply the South Vietnamese. Despite heroic efforts the South fell and radical tyranny and genocide were imposed on South East Asia. The reputation of the US was severely damaged, and this is one place that world opinion is worth worrying about.
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.