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

Skip to comments.

Columnist Pat Buchanan Asks, "Will We Stay the Course in Iraq?"
WND.com | 07-23-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

Posted on 07/23/2003 8:36:55 AM PDT by Theodore R.

Will we stay the course in Iraq?

Posted: July 23, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

After the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks, Ronald Reagan made a cold-blooded decision. Concluding America had no vital interest in Lebanon, he cut his losses and withdrew the Marines.

It was a rare failure of Reagan foreign policy.

Neoconservatives condemn him for not sending an army back into Beirut to deliver street justice and show Islamic radicals that the American Superpower could not be assaulted with impunity.

Reagan's decision, say the neocons, convinced radicals that America lacked the courage and perseverance to be master of the Middle East. Clinton's pullout after the "Blackhawk Down!" firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia, they say, confirmed the radicals' perception.

Where the Russians had fought in Afghanistan for a decade, the Americans had cut and run after the first bloodlettings. This, say the neocons, led to Osama's murderous miscalculation of 9-11.

Their argument cannot be dismissed. It is the whimpering dog that gets kicked. But there is a counter-argument. Neither in the Levant nor Somalia was there a vital U.S. interest. Whether Christians, Muslims or Syrians controlled Lebanon, whether Mohammad Aidid or some other warlord ran Somalia, did not imperil U.S. security.

Reagan's liberation of Grenada did affect vital interests. It swept a Soviet pawn off the board, exposed Moscow's impotence in the Caribbean, humiliated Castro and delivered a psychological blow to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who now knew that, should the Americans come, no one and nothing could save them. It was a victory in the Cold War, our war.

Which brings us to Iraq and predictions we may have to stay on and fight a guerrilla war for five or 10 years. Has anyone really thought this through? Has anyone calculated the probable price in billions and blood to bring "democracy" to Mesopotamia?

Certainly, Iraq is not Vietnam, where we lost 150 soldiers a week for seven years. Our casualties are coming at the rate of one a day. But media coverage is beginning to resemble the Vietnam of our nightmares.

The 24-hour-a-day cable TV networks are providing instant coverage of every sniper attack or ambush that kills an American. Cable TV also offers a daily forum for debate between those who want to persevere and those who say we should never have gone in.

That daily barrage of negative news and commentary about Iraq is already having the impact years of negative news and commentary from Vietnam had on the home front and troop morale. In the 10 weeks since the president made his Top Gun landing on the USS Lincoln, which was flying the streamer "Mission Accomplished," America has begun to sour on the war.

Newspapers and networks are saturated with stories of soldiers being ambushed, wounded, killed; of troops anxious to return home; of Shiites turning against the occupation; of rising costs and falling support for President Bush. A growing minority now says the war was a mistake and we should never have fought it.

Anyone who thinks Americans will stoically accept this for five or 10 years, or even two years, does not know this country. If TV coverage continues of Iraqis confronting U.S. troops, dancing around burned U.S. vehicles, demonstrating for us to get out, Americans – an impatient lot – will be only too happy to accommodate them.

President Bush has a grave problem. To date, no Saddam tie to al-Qaida has been established, no weapons of mass destruction, nukes, nuclear facilities or Scuds found. And Gen. Franks' planning for war appears to have been as brilliant as the planning for peace was botched.

No one seems to have prepared, or prepared us, for the kind of bloody long-term commitment we now face, and Americans will not accept that commitment unless told why. And why should we? If Saddam and his WMD were ever a threat, they surely are not now. Americans need answers to these questions.

If the Iraqis want us out, why stay? If it was necessary to go to war to disarm Iraq, why is it necessary to remain, now that Iraq is disarmed?

How is the War on Terror advanced by an occupation that inflames the Arab world and leaves 150,000 U.S. troops exposed to daily attacks? Were we misled into invading Iraq, to place our soldiers in a killing field of our Islamic enemies?

President Bush may reach another conclusion, but he had best think this through – as he and his aides did not, before they went in. For even a superpower must be mindful of the card shark's counsel in Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler."

"You have to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away, Know when to run."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; alqaida; baghdadpat; beirut; buchanan; bush; castro; coldwar; franks; gasbag; iraq; levant; lordhawhaw; mesopotamia; reagan; rebuildingiraq; shiites; somalia; soviets; staythecourse; talibanpat; war; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2003 8:36:56 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Wonder what this windbag has to say TODAY, after the deaths of the evil sons.
2 posted on 07/23/2003 8:39:16 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( ....I kind of miss Tanya Harding.....*sigh*......life was so simple then..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
FIFTH Columnist Pat Buchanan Asks, "Will We Stay the Course in Iraq?"
3 posted on 07/23/2003 8:41:34 AM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Anyone who thinks Americans will stoically accept this for five or 10 years, or even two years, does not know this country.


I wonder if PJB has learned anything about this country since his ill fated presidential runs?
4 posted on 07/23/2003 8:43:18 AM PDT by deport (On a hot day don't kick a cow chip...... only democrat enablers..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
How does that change anything?
5 posted on 07/23/2003 8:43:19 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Buchanan has an excellent point here. This is precisely why the U.S. has no business getting involved in military engagements like this -- our leaders are elected by people who have an attention span about as long as a 30-second TV commercial, and anything of this magnitude that doesn't deliver the desired results within a week is going to lose public support in a hurry.
6 posted on 07/23/2003 8:43:53 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
TO THE BUCHANAN BRIGADE:

It matters because the deaths yesterday have moved Iraq much much closer to having a legitimate government and becoming a legitimate nation.

I guess that's not important to some, though.
7 posted on 07/23/2003 8:47:51 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( ....I kind of miss Tanya Harding.....*sigh*......life was so simple then..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Has anyone calculated the probable price in billions and blood to bring "democracy" to Mesopotamia?

Yes. There's a lot more at stake than "democracy".

No one seems to have prepared, or prepared us, for the kind of bloody long-term commitment we now face, and Americans will not accept that commitment unless told why. And why should we?

The culture that produced 911 is violent, frustrated, angry, and humiliated. They blame us. If we don't change it or destroy it we face endless more 911's - enough of a threat to the destroy the open society so vital to our economy.

There's no other choice. There's no defence against boxcutters.

8 posted on 07/23/2003 8:48:14 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Did you even read the article?

Do you support leaving an occupation army in Iraq for 'as long as it takes' or do you support 'bringing the boys back home?'

The removal of the two sons more supports the latter, no?
9 posted on 07/23/2003 8:51:18 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
... people who have an attention span about as long as a 30-second TV commercial ...

Some of these people pay attention when needed:

T.J. Kewatt, left, touches the casket of his friend and cousin, Pfc. Edward James Herrgott, as he and others grieved at burial services in Shakopee, Minn., Tuesday, July 15. 2003. Herrgott, 20, was the first Minnesotan killed in the war in Iraq, shot by a sniper while guarding the National Museum in Baghdad, July 3. Kewatt, from Shakopee, was also serving with the Army in Iraq when his cousin was killed and accompanied Herrgott's body home. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)

10 posted on 07/23/2003 8:51:34 AM PDT by berserker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Will the next words out of Pat's mouth be, "Bush faked the deaths of Uday & Qusay to get his polls back up?" That's what the lefties are saying.
11 posted on 07/23/2003 8:52:02 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The war was justified. We will stay the course.
12 posted on 07/23/2003 8:52:38 AM PDT by 1Old Pro (The Dems are self-destructing before our eyes, How Great is That !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"There's no defence against boxcutters"

There is a defense, it just goes by the name of Todd Beamer instead of Don Rummy.
13 posted on 07/23/2003 8:52:59 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: berserker
Thanks for the post.

If the American public had been told back in February that U.S. soldiers would be killed while guarding Iraqi banks and museums, I'd venture to guess that public support for this war would have been almost zero.

Heck -- I can't think of too many people who would put their lives on the line to guard American museums from thugs and pillagers.

14 posted on 07/23/2003 8:54:31 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Buchanan is a proven misfit and a token spokesman for Conservatism and Republicans.
CNN and MSNBC hire these guys to give the Libs. a cleaner conscience.
15 posted on 07/23/2003 8:56:16 AM PDT by Helms (GWB is Lance Arm-strong-ing the Euros.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I agree very much with your noting the TV conditioned attention span of too many Americans (everything wrapped up neatly and happily in 30 mins to an hour) as a not to be dismissed dynamic that will come into play as this situation becomes prolonged.
16 posted on 07/23/2003 9:03:09 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
To paraphrase John Kennedy: "We don't do these things because they're easy. We do them because they're hard."
17 posted on 07/23/2003 9:04:08 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
To paraphrase Alberta's Child: "If it's not important enough to send everyone, then don't send anyone."
18 posted on 07/23/2003 9:12:17 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Do you really think that this war was about guarding banks. Buchanan talks about our lack of vital interest in Lebanon and Somalia, then completely ignores our vital interest in the Middle East when discussing our involvement in Iraq.

Radical Islam has been on the rise throughout the Middle East. Terrorism is just one symptom. Both Iraq and Iran were/are trying to get nuclear weapons. Just fast forward in your mind what a fix we would be in if the nut cases took control and cut off oil to this country. Think "trillions" in damages and a cut in our standard of living back about a century if we let it happen. Which we wouldn't/couldn't. We would go to war, no question.

Going into Iraq was a bold strike to nip the problem in the bud. I hate to think of how many lives of American soldiers would be sacrificed if we let the Middle East get out of control. Our presence there now will only be a mistake if we wimp out. Surely anyone with an ounce of foresight can see this.
19 posted on 07/23/2003 9:20:28 AM PDT by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Helms
Pat wants to inflict another defeat on the Republican Party like he did twice in helping Clinton win. He's helping the Ba'athists in the Democratic Party. He's an egotist and a blowhard.
20 posted on 07/23/2003 9:23:28 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Liberalism corrupts. Absolute Liberalism corrupts absolutely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry; Alberta's Child
Going into Iraq was a bold strike to nip the problem in the bud. I hate to think of how many lives of American soldiers would be sacrificed if we let the Middle East get out of control.

We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01, due to our lack of focusing on the Middle East.

21 posted on 07/23/2003 9:26:09 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
For over 20 years, radical Islamic groups have wantonly killed Americans and got away with it. Buchanan is willing to appeal to the bases form of fear and cowardliness to get as many wimps as he can to hurt the Republicans. Pat's not a Republican. He even left the party. He's a pure egotist and a menace to those who protect our country. He's willing to stab America in the back to get ahead. Shame on him.
22 posted on 07/23/2003 9:26:52 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Liberalism corrupts. Absolute Liberalism corrupts absolutely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
For over 20 years, radical Islamic groups have wantonly killed Americans and got away with it.

This too, though oil is the overriding interest.

23 posted on 07/23/2003 9:38:13 AM PDT by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The culture that produced 911 is violent, frustrated, angry, and humiliated.

And how many Iraqis exactly were involved in 9-11?

24 posted on 07/23/2003 9:39:42 AM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
Do you really think that this war was about guarding banks?

Absolutely not. Which is why the @sshole who decided to put U.S. soldiers at risk by assigning them to guard banks should be fired immediately and prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

Just fast forward in your mind what a fix we would be in if the nut cases took control and cut off oil to this country.

OK, so then it is all about oil after all?

25 posted on 07/23/2003 9:44:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane
We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01, due to our lack of focusing on the Middle East.

Correction -- We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01 due to our lack of focusing on the United States.

Any U.S. response to 9/11 that does not include the sacking of every incompetent bureaucrat in the FBI, CIA, INS, etc. is both inadequate and misdirected.

26 posted on 07/23/2003 9:46:56 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
not to quible with your language, but whether or not Iraq has a government has no effect on its Nationhood. Scotland is a legit nation and it hasn't been a State in 100s of years. Nations and States are different animals. Sometimes one is the other, other times a State (like the United Kingdom) is made up of several Nations, or bits of Different Nations.
27 posted on 07/23/2003 9:51:23 AM PDT by Murtyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Correction -- We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01 due to our lack of focusing on the United States.

Any U.S. response to 9/11 that does not include the sacking of every incompetent bureaucrat in the FBI, CIA, INS, etc. is both inadequate and misdirected.

So basically what you are saying is that there is no danger of any radical islamic or radical dictatorship in the Middle East developing WMD.

Am I right?

28 posted on 07/23/2003 9:51:39 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Newspapers and networks are saturated with stories of soldiers being ambushed, wounded, killed; of troops anxious to return home; of Shiites turning against the occupation; of rising costs and falling support for President Bush

Gee Pat .. kind of like what you are doing

29 posted on 07/23/2003 9:52:01 AM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01 due to our lack of focusing on the United States

How so? How would focusing on the United States prevented bin Laden's forces from attacking us again?

30 posted on 07/23/2003 9:52:36 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: deport
I wonder if PJB has learned anything about this country since his ill fated presidential runs?

Since??

He hasn't learned anything period

31 posted on 07/23/2003 9:54:03 AM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
He's an apologist for Saddam or he's soft on Saddam. Either one, he'd have never accepted the way he acts towards Saddam by a Democrat doing the same for Communists. Pat's played out.
32 posted on 07/23/2003 9:59:36 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Liberalism corrupts. Absolute Liberalism corrupts absolutely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dane
We lost 3,000 people on 9/11/01, due to our lack of focusing on the Middle East.

Wrong. We lost 3,000 people due to our lack of focusing on America.

Wrong. We lost 3,000 people due to our lack of focusing on America. IMO Pat was the only one vocally concerned about 'borders' and immigration. Pat's the only one, who had the guts to say that groups who want to come here and not assimilate, or are incapable of assimilation, should not be allowed in. They could be better helped in their own country. Why import problems? Pat also said we should have a immigration moratorium to properly 'assimilate' those who are here.

Pat was/is right most of the time.

33 posted on 07/23/2003 10:00:32 AM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Pakistan has already developed its own nuclear arsenal. I don't necessarily see this as a good thing, but I'm not taking a month off from work to dig a bomb shelter in my back yard, either.

The irony of the situation in Iraq was this -- the U.S. probably had a far better chance to control the development of WMD's in the Middle East when Saddam Hussein was in power than it does now.

34 posted on 07/23/2003 10:02:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
How would focusing on the United States prevented bin Laden's forces from attacking us again?

When the first Muslim showed up in flight school and said he wanted to learn to fly but wasn't interested in landing a plane, even a second-grader would have told you that something wasn't quite right.

For the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East to "combat terror," while at the same time allowing nearly unfettered access to this country by people all over the globe, is the height of idiocy.

35 posted on 07/23/2003 10:05:57 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Pakistan has already developed its own nuclear arsenal. I don't necessarily see this as a good thing, but I'm not taking a month off from work to dig a bomb shelter in my back yard, either

India also has had it's own nuclear program for almost 30 years now.

That keeps Pakistan in check, IMO.

But you didin't answer the original question, do you think it's okey dokey for pre-saddam Iraq and present day Iran pursuing a nuclear program.

36 posted on 07/23/2003 10:08:27 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
For the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East to "combat terror," while at the same time allowing nearly unfettered access to this country by people all over the globe, is the height of idiocy.

And Ashcroft has been tryong to crackdown on such practices, even with the onslaught of criticism from the press and demos.

Remember these terrorists got their "training" on Clinton's watch.

37 posted on 07/23/2003 10:10:57 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dane
But you didin't answer the original question, do you think it's okey dokey for pre-saddam Iraq and present day Iran pursuing a nuclear program.

The way I see it, there's not much of a difference between pre-Saddam Iraq or present-day Iran pursuing a nuclear program and any other nation in the world pursuing a nuclear program.

38 posted on 07/23/2003 10:13:21 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
In a January editorial in his "American Conservative" magazine, PJB said:

"While the war party spits out tired insults about Gallic Weakness, Paris seems to us a wise ally, trying to prevent an old friend from acting against her deeper interests."

Why did we ever think he was a conservative?

39 posted on 07/23/2003 10:14:39 AM PDT by Deb (Do these jeans make my tag look big?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And Ashcroft has been tryong to crackdown on such practices . . .

Fingerprinting Muslim immigrants at airports is one thing. Anyone who is intent on doing harm to this country will not be deterred from doing so just because his fingerprint is on file at FBI headquarters.

40 posted on 07/23/2003 10:15:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Catspaw; dighton
Lord Haw Haw/Baghdad Pat/Gasbag ping!
41 posted on 07/23/2003 10:16:57 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The way I see it, there's not much of a difference between pre-Saddam Iraq or present-day Iran pursuing a nuclear program and any other nation in the world pursuing a nuclear program

Really? Nuclear programs for everybody, I surmise you are saying.

Whew did you do an apprenticeship under Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter, who looked the other way at North Korea.

42 posted on 07/23/2003 10:17:59 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Fingerprinting Muslim immigrants at airports is one thing. Anyone who is intent on doing harm to this country will not be deterred from doing so just because his fingerprint is on file at FBI headquarters

OK, it's looks like from your above italicized passage above that the FBI can't do anything now, which contradicts your reply #35, where you placed the blame on the FBI.

I don't know but being all over the map is not a good way to debate, IMO.

43 posted on 07/23/2003 10:22:09 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dane
There's a big difference between encouraging nuclear programs and recognizing that they will exist.

I don't like it when it rains on Saturdays, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it when it does.

44 posted on 07/23/2003 10:24:05 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dane
OK, it's looks like from your above italicized passage above that the FBI can't do anything now, which contradicts your reply #35, where you placed the blame on the FBI.

In reply #35, I placed the blame on the FBI for its clear failure to identify a threat that wasn't a terribly well-concealed threat. I would not, on the other hand, blame the FBI for failing to identify a threat like the D.C. snipers or the LAX gunman -- these were cases involving people who didn't necessarily show a clear indication of their intent.

45 posted on 07/23/2003 10:27:06 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Ah, yes--and the Blame America First crowd is in attendance.
46 posted on 07/23/2003 10:30:07 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
In reply #35, I placed the blame on the FBI for its clear failure to identify a threat that wasn't a terribly well-concealed threat. I would not, on the other hand, blame the FBI for failing to identify a threat like the D.C. snipers or the LAX gunman -- these were cases involving people who didn't necessarily show a clear indication of their intent.

That wasn't the question asked of you in reply #43. In reply #40 you basically dissed Ashcroft's attempt to make sure that terrorists can't do anymore harm. Your reply #40, directy contradicts your reply #35.

But that isn't really the point of this pro-Buchanan thread. It is to cast doubt about us going into Iraq, just like what Katie Couric tries to do every weekday morning.

JMO, but I am glad for President Bush's resolve in Iraq. He is not being as political as Reagan(who was facing a re-election campaign in 84), who cut out of Lebanon in 83 when the Marine barracks bombing happened.

BTW, I am very greatful of Ronald Reagan's election in 80 and 84, but the precedent of Lebanon in 83, emboldened the terrorists, IMO.

47 posted on 07/23/2003 10:48:03 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Great piece.
48 posted on 07/23/2003 10:48:06 AM PDT by Tauzero (please return your stewardess to her original upright position)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"So basically what you are saying is that there is no danger of any radical islamic or radical dictatorship in the Middle East developing WMD."

WMD are to nations what guns are to individuals.

...and an armed society is a polite society.
49 posted on 07/23/2003 10:53:28 AM PDT by Tauzero (please return your stewardess to her original upright position)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Sorry for the confusion about #35 and #40.

The number of illegal aliens entering the U.S. in any given year numbers in the hundreds of thousands, a tiny fraction of whom enter via an international airport. Screening people at airports is a great idea, but I happen to know from my own work experience that this is little more than window-dressing to let the public know that "something" is being done. In fact, it is specifically a "backward-looking" measure in that it is a direct response to the last terrorist attack instead of a "forward-looking" measure to ward off the next one.

I'm sure that there are quite a few of these forward-looking measures in place that we don't know about. But I also know that nothing would be more effective in fighting terror than taking the people who botched their responsibilities before and holding them responsible for their role in the last terror attack.

50 posted on 07/23/2003 10:54:45 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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.

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