Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam's Dangerous Friends
Weekly Standard ^ | 03/24/08 | Stephen F. Hayes

Posted on 03/24/2008 7:48:02 AM PDT by DFG

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; iraq; prequel; saddam; stephenhayes
Thanks to the MSM, no amount of evidence will convince liberals that Saddam actively supported al Qaeda before 09/11/01.
1 posted on 03/24/2008 7:48:02 AM PDT by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DFG

Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire.


2 posted on 03/24/2008 7:51:14 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

No news here Move along. As long as the lame stream media has anything to say this is a dead in the water story.


3 posted on 03/24/2008 7:54:03 AM PDT by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire.


Exactly. This should be etched onto the foreheads of any idiots who proclaim that Iraq never “attacked” America.

Bush wasn’t going to wait around for them to do it.


4 posted on 03/24/2008 7:58:53 AM PDT by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

“Not to mention that were were in a state of war with Iraq all through the 90’s. Saddam never surrendered, nor did he observe any of the conditions of the cease fire”.

Which is why we should have used our military power to level Iraq’s defenses while targeting the Sadam regime in 2003, rather to go in by land, sea, and air in a nation building project.

It’s one thing for our troops to die fighting such as when our military landed on the beaches of Normandy. Every loss was tragic but they died fighting. What do the reports say coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Almost always that a humvee was on patrol and hit a roadside bomb and X number died.

I think to myself everytime.....for what? While on patrol? While driving down a road? This isn’t our troops dying in a war, it’s our troops dying in a series of fatal accidents. A long series of intentionally designed fatal accidents. That is what is so freaking frustrating about this. They are killed under conditions where they aren’t even fighting. That doesn’t take away from their bravery or combat skills, it simply makes their deaths senseless.


5 posted on 03/24/2008 8:02:56 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
You are so wrong in so many ways.

Oh, welcome to FR

6 posted on 03/24/2008 8:16:45 AM PDT by arbee4bush (Our Airman Daughter KB4W--Hero, Patriot and the Love of her mom & dads life! GO FDT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

Are you really serious there Newbie? Please let me know so I don’t have to write a whole bunch of stuff to educate you.


7 posted on 03/24/2008 8:27:48 AM PDT by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arbee4bush

Okay, call me crazy but I happen to believe that our national defense should be for our national defense. That our military power should be used punitively, not for nation building.

That when you send your troops to go and die, that they should be doing some serious ass kicking, not dying from planted roadside bombs. Dying while in a defensive role all so we can make things better for the people of a country who are planting IEDs and launching grenades and mortars at our guys.


8 posted on 03/24/2008 8:28:27 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: arbee4bush
Our Airman Daughter KB4W

You gave your daughter a ham radio callsign for a name?

Just kidding. :-)
73's and prayers to her!
9 posted on 03/24/2008 8:32:10 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

So what would you have done? Let Saddam get away with it all?


10 posted on 03/24/2008 8:33:21 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

Go for it? Educate me. I’m sure you’re up to cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff from your word file.

Explain how it is the same when in WWll, our military landed on the beaches of Normandy and while so many lost their lives, they lost their lives while shelling the hell out of the enemy to how our guys day after day in Iraq and Afghanistan are for the most part dying by planted roadside bombs and mortar attacks while not engaging in combat. It’s not that no bad guys are being killed doing it this way, it’s that the way our military is having to go about it is insane. It’s the way a country fights that doesn’t care more about their own troops than they do people of other countries.


11 posted on 03/24/2008 8:37:52 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Hell no. I would have bombed the hell out of his country until his own people overthrew him. I would followed that up with an ultimatum that if they allow Al Qaeda in or become a threat to us in any way ever again, that we will be back to level them again and that while bombing will be targeted, there will no regard for the well being or prosperity of their nation.


12 posted on 03/24/2008 8:42:38 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

If, after you have “bombed the hell out of his country”, his own people never overthrow him, then what? You’ve enraged the population, sown seeds of hatred against the U.S. for another generation, and still haven’t solved the problem of Saddam’s regime.

Let’s say, after we “bomb the hell out of his country”, they DO overthrow him. They will then form a new government that is still an enemy of the U.S., promotes terrorism, etc.

Either way, the problem is not solved.


13 posted on 03/24/2008 9:16:36 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
I’m sure you’re up to cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff from your word file.

Nope, no Word file cut and paste. Where you got that idea from I'll never know. Soldiers are soldiers. When in a combat zone (which is what the entirety of Iraq is by the way) combat is always possible. Just because you aren't firing offensive volleys doesn't mean it's not combat.

14 posted on 03/24/2008 9:25:42 AM PDT by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

That is where the ultimatum comes in. You put the new govt on notice that if they do not meet our demands, what the consequences will be.

Plenty of people in Iraq knew where Sadam was when he was in hiding. They knew better than anybody else did where he was. If they want to stop being bombed, they cooperate.

As far as hate, we should be feared and respected around the world, not loved. We will be hated no matter what by certain elements of the world population. Your same argument could have been made to not drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. That future generations would hate us for it. Heck, your line of reasoning could be used to argue against ever using any force against any enemies foreign or domestic.......don’t make them mad at us, they’ll hate us. It’s like the liberal parent that doesn’t punish their children because they don’t want to be hated by them. Or like how the liberals are for being soft on criminals because they don’t want the criminals being even angrier at society. It’s bogus. Pure BS.


15 posted on 03/24/2008 9:31:33 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
That our military power should be used punitively, not for nation building.

Why not? Did it not work in Japan? It is indeed in our national interest for these countries to be stable. Iraq is an excellent opportunity for us to be and stay a force of good to be reckoned with in the Middle East. Let's also not not forget (throwing off all the PC guises) that we have some solid military infrastructure of our own right smack dab in the heart of the Middle East. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the war against Islam is anywhere near over. It is just getting started.

Let's also not forget that freedom is contagious. A free Iraq will be a shining example to the rest of the 7th century minded region. Heck, even parts of Africa may come into the light. It is in our national interest (and some might say obligation) to spread freedom throughout a world full of tyranny and oppression. And least ye not forget: freedom ain't free; it's a hefty f***in' fee.

16 posted on 03/24/2008 9:36:46 AM PDT by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"That is where the ultimatum comes in. You put the new govt on notice that if they do not meet our demands, what the consequences will be."

What would our demands be?

And why don't we behave this way toward other countries? If they don't submit to our demands, we just bomb them into the stone age.

Sounds like an excellent foreign policy.

"As far as hate, we should be feared and respected around the world, not loved."

In WWII, we shouldn't have started the Marshall Plan. We should have just told the German population and all the Nazi insurgents to comply with our demands or we would continue bombing their country into smithereens. Great idea! Wonder what modern day Europe would look like if we had followed that line of reasoning...
17 posted on 03/24/2008 9:40:39 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

“When in a combat zone (which is what the entirety of Iraq is by the way) combat is always possible. Just because you aren’t firing offensive volleys doesn’t mean it’s not combat”.

The troops in combat today are just as brave and more skilled than past generations of soldiers. But they are by and large dying needlessly because of the liberalism that has so infected our collective mindset. The mindset that says that when an enemy combatant can be taken out but doing so will kill 4 civilians so you let him go and he later leads an ambush that takes out 4 of our own. The mindset that no longer uses our military power punitively but as some sort of international relief society, at a huge cost to ourselves in both lives and treasure.

I see things a certain way and until I’m convinced otherwise, this is the way I view it. That countries like Iraq have deep rooted tribes and sects that are in opposition to its govt. We have groups in the U.S. that are in opposition to law and order and they are called gangs which have the same sort of tribal mentality. Fortunately for us and while they do inflict suffering on innocents, they make up a small fraction of our population. If however, they represented 30-40% of our population, our law enforcement would be in big trouble. They would have to resort to the type of brutality that our military is not allowed to use.

Because of these deep rooted tribes and sects that are not a small fraction of the people, the only chance for a stable Iraq after we leave, is for it to have a strong central govt that rules with an iron fist. The longer we are in Iraq, the longer we delay the inevitable while we sacrifice our own in the process.

I’ve been told I am wrong because all of humanity is basically the same. That we all want the same things. Well, we all want to be rich but not everybody is willing to do what it takes to be rich. We all want to be healthy, yet some people still take drugs, smoke, over-eat, etc. And we all have certain principles that we believe in so strongly that we are willing to die so that our kids will live under them. We in our culture believe so strongly in things like Freedom of speech, a free press, etc.....that we are willing to die so that our kids will live under those values.

Well, in muslim countries, people believe so strongly in their values that they are willing to die so that their kids will live under those same values. They may not all be fundamentalists and radical, but enough of them are that only a strong central govt that instills fear into their populations can control all those tribes and sects. We are not going to change the values of the Muslim world in a year, in 10 years, or 100 years and even if we could......at what cost to ourselves? This is why I say that it is not the job of our military to make our country loved around the world. It is their job to commit violence against those that threaten or harm us. The role of a military is to defend its population. Hence the term.....national defense.


18 posted on 03/24/2008 9:50:03 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Look, terrible things happen in war. It is beyond any of our ability to even understand how terrible it is unless we have been there. This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going. Once that decision is made, then you do not have mercy on your enemy until they have met all your demands and you should make those demands very clear from the outset. There should be no confusion about what it is they are to do.

In the case of Iraq, we should have laid out what it is we expected of their leadership.

1) comply with UN resolutions and cease firing at our patrols.
2) allow unconditional and unlimited searches for WMD.
3) Do not threaten its neighbors.
4) Do not support or fund terrorism.

Obviously, there are people out there who can make those points using much better language and speaking skills. Heck, if advisors to our politicians can take meaningless platitudes and turn them into good speeches for every election, then they can take the points I listed and turn them into good speeches. I could if I wanted to spend a few days preparing one but why would I? I’m not a speech writer for anybody.


19 posted on 03/24/2008 9:59:07 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD

I might also add that the oh so politically incorrect Fly Paper Method (thank goodness for Rummy) is working like a charm.


20 posted on 03/24/2008 9:59:15 AM PDT by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"The troops in combat today are just as brave and more skilled than past generations of soldiers. But they are by and large dying needlessly because of the liberalism that has so infected our collective mindset. The mindset that says that when an enemy combatant can be taken out but doing so will kill 4 civilians so you let him go and he later leads an ambush that takes out 4 of our own. The mindset that no longer uses our military power punitively but as some sort of international relief society, at a huge cost to ourselves in both lives and treasure."

So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?

"Because of these deep rooted tribes and sects that are not a small fraction of the people, the only chance for a stable Iraq after we leave, is for it to have a strong central govt that rules with an iron fist."

Same arguments were used in the case of Japan. So if we had followed your reasoning, we would have left Japan alone after our victory. They were an entirely foreign culture, one so zealous that they would kill themselves to preserve their way of life. Who knows what modern day Japan would look like if we hadn't reconstructed them into a modern, free society?
21 posted on 03/24/2008 10:03:13 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going."

So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can't see that your threshold of "national security at risk" was met in 1991. Don't you think that you are setting the bar too high? Why shouldn't we be able to use our military in circumstance in which our national security is not directly threatened?
22 posted on 03/24/2008 10:06:56 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

There are so many differences between Germany and Japan and the Muslims that I don’t even know where to start. I think I’ve explained my opinion on this in other posts so I’m not going to restate the same points over again.

First off, Japan was completely defeated and formally surrendered. Secondly, Japan and Germany were never third world countries. As evil as their motives were, they were always industrious, productive, resourceful people and were never self-destructive. Islam is a destructive force. We are not war with Islam......just ask the President, or ask John McCain, or any of our foreign policy makers.

At the end of WWll, Japan and Germany were ready to move forward and were still the same industrious, resourceful, productive, first world people they always were. If you look at their motives for war in the first place, it was motives that had to do with making their countries stronger and more powerful. They were driven by nationalism. Muslims are not driven by nationalism. A percentage of them are, but not enough of them are.


23 posted on 03/24/2008 10:07:22 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"This is why you don’t go to war unless your national security is at risk by not going."

So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can't see that your threshold of "national security at risk" was met in 1991.

Don't you think that you are setting the bar too high? Why shouldn't we be able to use our military in circumstances in which our national security is not directly threatened?
24 posted on 03/24/2008 10:08:37 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thrownatbirth
LOL-I'll let her know she has a ham radio call sign for her FR screen name (she picked it out herself--her initials)

Thanks for the prayers--she will be deployed to the sandpit again next month for the summer.

25 posted on 03/24/2008 10:11:45 AM PDT by arbee4bush (Our Airman Daughter KB4W--Hero, Patriot and the Love of her mom & dads life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

I wasn’t against the war in 91. In fact, that was a perfect example of our military being used to punish an aggressor that was causing instability and threatening world markets. We didn’t go in and get ourselves bogged down trying to make Iraq a better place. Had we had the same military we do today, I would have advocated bombing Iraq until Sadam was forced out of power. I would not have been for a ground invasion followed by decades of propping them up however.

Every time we use our military for non military objectives, it comes back to bite us eventually. I once on here responded to someone saying that our troops deserve to come home with honor by saying that they come home with honor because they achieved every military objective given to them with both speed and precision and that just because the politicians keep setting non-military objectives, does not mean that our military comes home without honor.

I got a reply of “how is not allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven not a military objective”? Well, that is a military objective if use your military to punish those giving Al Qaeda a safe haven. It is not possible for a foreign military to do for a country what they should be doing for themselves. It is not the role of a military to go into other countries and change their cultures, values, belief systems, and way of life. It is simply not possible. It has never been done in the history of the world. Countries have been conquered and forced to change. Insurgencies have been put down with brutal force. But never in the history of the world has it been done what we are trying to do. It will not work and only when more of the lives of our own service-members have been lost and possibly a few more attacks against our civilians will we have learned the hard way. We are only delaying the inevitable.


26 posted on 03/24/2008 10:18:50 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"It is not the role of a military to go into other countries and change their cultures, values, belief systems, and way of life. It is simply not possible. It has never been done in the history of the world."

Germany was under military occupation during the Marshall Plan. Same thing is true for Japan and Korea. After militarily defeating those countries and occupying them with our Army, we radically altered the societies of those countries.
27 posted on 03/24/2008 10:27:36 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"I wasn’t against the war in 91."

Wait a minute. You just stated in a previous post that the U.S. should never use its military unless our national security is directly threatened. How is the world was Iraq in 1991 directly threatening our national security?
28 posted on 03/24/2008 10:29:24 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

“So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?
So you believe that we should not have had the Marshall Plan? We should have just kept indiscriminantly bombing the crap out of Germany until the Nazi insurgents were all dead?”

The British firebombed German cities indiscriminately because they were in a battle for their very survival. We used the atomic bomb on Japan even though we were killing more of their people with conventional bombs than the atomic bombs did. It was so devastating to them that they gave up. We flew day missions and more targeted mission over Germany than Britain did, but don’t kid yourself.......the Germans and Japanese were rendered completely defeated before anybody worried about helping the Germans or Japanese.

One would have gotten their ass kicked if in the middle of WWll, someone started talking about how we need to start helping those poor innocent Germans and Japanese people. They said things back then like “our boys”. Those were “our boys”. Their lives mattered more to Americans than the lives of did of the Germans or Japanese. I knew we were doomed after Sept 11th when none of our leaders would even dare say that we should go to war because “Americans” had been killed. That would have been so bigoted of a thing to say afterall. We surely couldn’t think of discriminating against what happened to Americans from what happened to all people everywhere. All People everywhere were under attack was the only way to justify any action on our part. God forbid we ever go to war again for our own national security interests only and to avenge the lives of just Americans. If it’s not an “international” mission designed to defend all free people around the world then we somehow aren’t justified.


29 posted on 03/24/2008 10:37:46 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Sadam was a threat because he would have destabilized world markets. That is a legitimate national security concern. Just like we had a valid national security reason for attacking Iraq in 03. I’m not arguing nor have I ever argued that Sadam and Iraq was not a threat to the world and therefore us. I’m arguing strategy. We should have bombed Iraq until we had a formal declaration of surrender. We then should have laid out our demands backed up with force if needed. The people in Iraq know better than we do who the bad guys are in their country. Look at how many of them help the insurgencies or at minimum do not turn them in. They would figure it out real fast what it is they need to be doing. As far as the countries like Iran sending in foreign fighters, you strike Tehran from the air. While bombing should always be targeted, we should never limit our actions based on fear of collateral damage. Look at how WWll was fought (the last all out, unlimited war) and tell me in all seriousness that the fear of collateral damage limited our actions. It did not. We had the luxury of conducting day raids because the British had firebombed entire German cities and we didn’t have to resort to that in Germany. Concerning Japan however, tell me in all seriousness that our military actions were limited out of fear for collateral damage. You can’t and be honest because they weren’t and that was the last war where they weren’t and it’s the last war we won. We won in less time than it’s taken to reduce violence in Iraq and we were fighting two super powers.


30 posted on 03/24/2008 10:51:12 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

“Germany was under military occupation during the Marshall Plan. Same thing is true for Japan and Korea”.

Yea, and the people of those countries weren’t still fighting us then. There were a few Nazi insurgents but the German people didn’t like them. They blamed them for the war and didn’t identify with them. The Iraqi people identify more with the insurgents in their country than they identify with us because of Islam. That is more powerful to far too many of them than anything else is. Yea, some of them are helping us but that has to do more with a power grab after we leave than any loyalties on a large scale.

Am I saying there are no Iraqis that identify more with us than Islamic tribes, sects, and insurgents? No. But not enough of them do. There is a tipping point in every type of situation where stability breaks down. It’s like a classroom of kids where the teacher can control the kids if it’s only one or two trouble makers. Once it’s five, six, or seven, the whole class breaks down because the tipping point has been reached. It’s like my gangs in America analogy I gave earlier. As long as those in gangs make up a small percentage of people, law and order on a large scale does not break down. What if they represented half of our population though? How brutal do you think our govt and law enforcement would have to be to put them down? Our military in this day and age can never use the type of violence necessary to stabilize Iraq in the long term. Only another strong central govt in Iraq that puts down all insurgencies with an iron fist can do that. Sadly, Sadam was a byproduct of his environment just like so many dictators are. Whoever is the most brutal rises to power because they are the only ones that can achieve stability. As sad as that is, it does nobody any good to pretend things are otherwise.


31 posted on 03/24/2008 11:08:01 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

“So you were opposed to the war in 1991? I can’t see that your threshold of “national security at risk” was met in 1991”.

My arguments is one that says we should know the difference between military objectives and non-military objectives. That we should be realistic about what a military can and cannot achieve in and for another country. Only when we are clear about this, can we be clear about what our goals should be.


32 posted on 03/24/2008 11:21:24 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"Sadam was a threat because he would have destabilized world markets."

You would advocate the destruction of an entire country and bombing a population into the stone age because they "destabilized world markets"?

You need to rethink your analysis! You don't go "total war" on another country unless they have seriously threatened national security. What Saddam was doing didn't rise to the level to justify totally obliterating the country and just leaving smoke and ashes...
33 posted on 03/24/2008 11:22:58 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

I never once advocated the compete obliteration of Iraq. Is there a Japan today? Is there a Germany today? Or are those civilizations we just read about in the history books that no longer exist?

There is a big difference between the complete obliteration of a country and fighting an unlimited war. In an unlimited war, you do not sacrifice your objectives and therefore your goals out of fear of inflicting collateral damage or what world opinion says. This is why it is critical to make sure the cause is worth the sacrifice in the first place. Before one guy in camouflage gets sent in for a mission, we better be darned sure we are willing to do what it takes to win and that includes an all out war if need be. If the cause is not worth it, then why is even one life being sacrificed for it?

No country has ever benefited from prolonged war. Any benefits you gain from war becomes not worth it. In other words, the war becomes worse than the problem itself. It doesn’t have to be that way though. If war is fought correctly and aggressively, it is over quickly. That does not mean you needlessly kill innocents just for the sake of doing so. It means you do not sacrifice the very objectives and goals you laid out in the first place out of fear of collateral damage.


34 posted on 03/24/2008 11:40:51 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Even though I never suggested the destruction of an entire country, you do realize what I mean by “destabilizing world markets” don’t you? Someone with enough power over world resources can cause a world depression. Cut off oil supplies and shipping routes. We are talking about more deaths from a world depression than any war has ever caused. Sadam, or anyone like him, allowed to take over the middle east could have caused more deaths in the world than we can ever imagine by being able to hold much of the world hostage economically.


35 posted on 03/24/2008 11:51:49 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

We did not radically alter the societies of those countries. The Germans and Japanese, for all their other faults, have always been a productive people rather than a self-destructive one. The Germans and Japanese saw a benefit to working with those that defeated them in order to forge a better future for their countries. Islam is at odds with that. Like a said, it doesn’t take 100% of a population to make law and order impossible. It only takes enough to cause a tipping point.

Sadly, I had these exact same debates five years ago on a liberal forum discussing Iraq. And here I thought I stubbled upon a bastion of conservatism. HA.....we’re all liberals now aren’t we. From the comments you’ve been making and suggesting that I am in favor of oblliterating an entire country, I think you might want to brush up on WWll history.

We fire-bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany and Britain fire-bombed the hell out of German cities and nobody went around crying that entire populations were being obliterated. What will it take??????????????????? to get through????????????


36 posted on 03/24/2008 12:16:10 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LaurenD
"Islam is at odds with that"

Your analysis hinges on the point that Iraq cannot change into a free society because of it's Islamic culture.

It's on this point that your analysis fails. Iraq has historically been a fairly secular country. The population of Iraq has historically been fairly secular.
37 posted on 03/24/2008 1:05:58 PM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Iraq has always had deep rooted tribes and sects. Enough of them to cause instability in the country. Sadam squashed that because he ruled with an iron fist and instilled fear into the population. That is not the same thing as being a secular country.

That is not to say that there are no secularists in Iraq. It is to say there aren’t nearly enough to counter those that engage in tribal and sectarian fighting and yes Islam is either at the root of that or is used by those mullahs in power in order to control people.

I am pessimistic of the long term stability of Iraq after we leave unless there is a central govt in Iraq that can put down insurgencies and that is hard to do without resorting to the type of brutality our military can never get away with again within the liberal world opinion that our foreign policy makers allow themselves to be manipulated by and therefore restrain our military with.


38 posted on 03/24/2008 1:14:48 PM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson