Posted on 01/23/2003 4:56:31 PM PST by VaBthang4
The more I hear the World complaining, the more negative articles I read, the more supposed allies position themselves against us, the more convinced I become that what the President is doing is right.
The list of reasons not to rely on French, German, Russian or UN judgment is long and distinguished.
My Government's motives may or may not be entirely pure but at the end of the day I trust it long before these others.
The list of reasons not to rely on the AP, UPI, REUTERS, New York Times, LA times, Washington Post, the networks or CNN's judgment is long and distinguished.
The more they print or cover negative articles or stories about any coming US war with Iraq the more I pause and remember the other things they have bemoaned..Kyoto, The ICC, 2000 Elections, 2002 Elections, etc, etc.
The list of reasons not to rely on the supposed Peace Movement's judgment is long and distinguished. The list of reasons not to rely on the Catholic Church's judgment is long and distinguished.
The more they all scream "the sky is fallng" the more confident in GW's decision making and motives I become.
BTW, North Korea already has nukes (haven't used them though either). Why aren't you on your hind legs demanding that Bush stop his appeasement policy there of giving the Commies 170 tons grain last year! If we had pursued the "isolantionist" policy, much despised here, of cutting off foreign aid North Korea would have fallen of its own weight years ago...yet Bush (just like Clinton had) kept it on life support. Do you intend also think we should launch an invasion of Brazil (now ruled by a commie) because of the possibility that the might build nukes?
I agree that "taking out," Saddam will not be that difficult. The problem begins when we start to police... err "patrol" (like that better?) that medieval, ethnically/religiously fragmented hell-hole called Iraq and "reconstruct" it.
You may think that building democracy doesn't mean squat to U.S. policy, but if you are right then Bush is a liar. He has vowed that we will "not walk away" from Iraq and build democracy there and make it "stable" (LOL).
The reborn conservative Wilsonians, who were sensible nationalists and realists on Kosovo and Haiti, actually seem to believe in the fairy tale that the Kurds, Shi'tes, Sunnis, with our "help," will hold hands and sing Kumbaya in "new Iraq." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Finally, according to the logic of your "take out" theory, Kennedy tried to kill Castro, therefore Castro has the right to "take out" Dubya, or does the logic only apply in one direction?
Again, the best solution for the U.S. is to fortify its borders, stop playing nanny to the world and spreading ourselves thin, and build SDI.
Would a fortified border stopped the sleeper cells on US soil? (A: no)
Would SDI stop airliners from crashing into buildings? (A: no)
Its time for Libertarians like yourself to enter into the 21st century. 9/11 has demonstrated that a small group of determined, well financed and well supplied individuals can do great harm to us. What kind of defense can the military provide against this modern threat? They can cut off the supplies and the financing by taking out regimes that support terror. They can make it highly undesireable for other countries to associate themselves with terrorists by setting an example.
Iraq is perfect for this goal: they finance terrorists, they can supply terrorists with WMD, and they are easily beatable. A bonus to the defeat of Iraq may be the self-collapse of the current Iranian government. OTOH, North Korea would be more difficult to defeat and diplomatic avenues (which is far cheaper than war) have not been exhausted.
Libertarians need to reconsider the value of pre-emptive strikes as a means of self-defense, and in fact consider pre-emptive strikes as a duty of the government. I believe a Libertarian published such an article several months ago (it was posted on the FR, but I cannot find it).
The war against Al Qaeda should be fought but what in God's name does that have to do with a campaign to conquer and occupy a country run by a secularist, wannabe Mussolini (who spurns Islamic law) have to do with that goal? Your national defense arguments ring allow. This war is being waged for a mixture of Wilsonian goals and regional goals which have nothing to do with home defense and everything to do with spreading ourselves thin.
World policing in Iraq is hopelessly utopian and unrealistic as the sad list of failures in international social engineering demonstrate: Kosovo, Somalia, Gulf War I, Haiti, etc.....but nothing seems to succeed like failure eh?
Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War.
You open with...
"I supported the Afghan war which was in the fine and honorable American tradition of national defense."
And close with...
"Instead of being "modern," your proposal takes us back to outmoded policies of the Cold War."
???
The Cold War is a supreme example of American National Defense.
Are you positive that you're competent in what you're talking about?
I think it would be a better statement had you said all of the above goals are not motivated purely from a home defense perspective.
That would be true. But to imply that removing Saddam Hussein doesnt affect home security in a positive way is brutaly ignorant if not simply knee-jerk contrarianism.
"Another foreign war will go down as yet another failure of internatioanl social engineering"
Then it seems to me that you have nothing to concern yourself with. If it is doomed to failure then sit back and let it flow...dominated a thread with your contrary opinion gives away your true thoughts.
Tell us something we dont know.
You said you support traditional National Defense but then besmirch the shining example of American National Defense...the Cold War...as being an outmoded policy.
Seems a bit confusing.
Huh? I didnt type that did I?
I wrote: You said you support traditional National Defense but then besmirch the shining example of American National Defense...the Cold War.
You wouldnt be attributing false quotes to people, now would you? And then going on to build a rebuttal based on the false quote?
Now, as to the rest of your response...
"I am merely pointing out that world conditions have changed and thus strategic national defense needs have also changed."
Well, obviously by default you want to "contain" Iraq correct? Or do you simply want to ignore them? If you want to contain them then you are using the exact same method used during the Cold War....a method you said was outdated or something to that effect.
"I am not the one who wants to put them [The Military] in harm's way"
That is what the Military is for. To be placed in harms way. Implying that putting them in harms way is something irresponsible or improper is foolish. That is what you do with a military. Place it in harms way in order for the civilians not to be.
"in international futile and endless Wilsonian crusades to "build democracy" and "enforce regional stability" that have nothing to do with home defense."
Again a poorly worded or simply cerebrally weak statement. I doubt you want to state that American National Security isnt positively affected by the above actions.
That's a new one to me. What is its origin?
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.