Posted on 10/16/2002 7:24:09 AM PDT by Conservageek
If you want to shut up an entire room full of anti-war left-wingers, just ask them what to do about the global terrorist network, or more specifically, Iraq. Actually, this SHOULD shut them up. But instead you'll be treated to long, nonsensical diatribes about how this is about oil, imperialism, hegemony, why we should give more aid to the poor, the Kyoto treaty, 'Noam Chomsky says', Florida in the 2000 Presidential election, the 'cycle of violence', Israel, how brave they are for being against the war, dissent is patriotism, civilian casualties, how America is cowardly for bombing instead of using the army and fighting face to face, etc, etc, etc. They'll talk about anything except how to deal with terrorists who consider skyscrapers, pizza parlors, and nightclubs to be legitimate targets.
The reason the anti-war left doesn't want to talk about real solutions is because they don't have any that hold water. Their ideas go from the unworkable (let's try more of the same sanctions that have been failing miserably for more than a decade) to the ridiculous (the root cause of terrorism is poverty so we need to give more foreign aid.) We're more than a year out from 9/11 and I have yet to hear anyone who opposes the war offer a single plausible way to destroy the global terrorist network without using military force. Since the anti-war crowd doesn't have any real alternatives to offer, they've just decided to sling as much mud as possible at the pro-war argument. It reminds me of watching of a bratty six-year-old in a grocery store arguing with his mother...
"You won't give me that candy bar because you're mean! It's not fair! I hate you!"
The pro-war crowd is talking about real threats to America and the world and the anti-war crowd is claiming their motives are impure. How do you respond to that? "No, I'm not a warmonger, but thank you very much for asking?" Is there anything the pro-war crowd could say that would ever convince the anti-war left that this is really about stopping terrorism? Slinging mud and talking about motives is all well and good, but by refusing to offer up feasible solutions of their own, the anti-war crowd has become largely irrelevant. Brad Wardell at Joeuser.com summed it up fairly well when he said that,
"The anti-war crowd is like the man trapped in a burning building. Standing near the edge of a window he sees a net being placed below him to jump into. He ponders all the things that might go wrong if he tries to jump into the net. Maybe he'll miss. Maybe the net will break. Maybe he'll get hurt anyway. Does that mean he shouldn't still jump? Without considering the results of not jumping (such as being horribly burned to death), it's a meaningless argument."
Despite all of their complaints that "we haven't had a debate yet", the debate came to Congress and the antiwar left had no viable plan to offer to the public. Even though George Bush spent almost a year telling the world how he intended to deal with the global terrorist network , there were still claims that he, "hadn't made the case" (Could any argument have ever "made the case" as far as they were concerned?). Coming from people who hadn't even started to "make a case" for their non-existent plan of action, those words rang hollow. By default, the argument they were trying to make seemed to be "we'll just have to learn to live with thousands, perhaps even millions of Americans dying in terrorist attacks. Better that than go to war."
The monsters among us who thought nothing of murdering thousands of people on 9/11, who murder women and children at bus stops in Israel, who blow up pedestrians in the streets of Kabul, who attack the Parliament of India, who killed almost two hundred people just trying to have a good time in Bali, have to be stopped. To allow these terrorist groups and the rogue regimes that support them to continue to flourish is madness. In a world where chemical, biological, and soon perhaps even nuclear weapons will be in the hands of regimes that actively fund, train, and protect terrorist groups, no nation is safe. A handful of homicidal terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon or biological weapons are capable of killing astronomical numbers of people while still remaining relatively anonymous. In fact, even if millions died in an attack, there is no guarantee that we could determine who was responsible and who supplied their weapons of mass destruction. To ignore a threat like this is irresponsible. Worse yet, to disparage those who are trying to save not only American lives, but also lives all across the world without presenting an alternative is wrong. If the anti-war left is willing to live in an America filled with 9/11s and punctuated by mushroom clouds and biological attacks, that is their own foolish choice. But to try to drag the rest of us into the inevitable carnage and horror that would result from their paralysis is nothing less than despicable.
I'm no lefty, but based on the information I have available to me I've been opposed to a war with Iraq since Day 1.
Not because I don't perceive the threat that Iraq presents, but because I find the whole notion of "fighting global terror" in the Middle East absolutely laughable when the United States continues to maintain an open border with its neghbors and allows unfettered access from almost any point on the globe via our international airports.
When the U.S. government starts sacking radical mosques and Islamic "cultural centers" in our cities, and sending the occupants (along with the lawyers that stand up to defend them) out to see on burning barges, then you can come and talk to me about "fighting terror" in the Middle East.
Duh... what do we do about terrorism if we don't kick Saddam's behind?... Duh...
Well, perhaps someone can explain why would there be fewer terrorist attacks directed at us IF we kick Saddam's ass. Can someone explain this?
You want to have fewer terrorist attacks? Then proceed as follows:
1 - Incarcerate or kick out all domestic terrorists or potential terrorists. If some 'ethnic cleansing is needed', then... don't hesitate. Kick them out, then let them demostrate why they should be allowed back in. Fewer 'Muslims' would suffer this way than would if we had to go to war abroad with them.
2 - Don't let any more of those in. I see no reason not to keep all Arabs/Muslims out of the country. We are a sovreign nation and we let in whom we please. There's not need to explain. If they don't want to let us into their countries... well, who would want to go there any way.
3 - Let the Jews and Arabs fight until there is one clear winner. Don't support any party but don't force them to stop either, no matter what.
I believe these should do quite nicely.
So it might be more accurate to claim that kicking Saddam's butt will result in less effective terrorist attacks.
You might want to ask Muammar Gadaffi. Reagan rang his chimes in 1987 following a Libyan-sponsored attack on a Berlin nightclub, and he's been as timid and quiet as a mouse ever since.
What world do you live in, anyway? Appeasement in this world has never worked. It never will. If Neville Chamberlain is your idea of a peacemaker, you need to expand your intellectual horizons few hundred degrees.
If you can't find a clue--buy one.
Here's a clue for you -- In your haste to identify that nasty forest in the Middle East, you've missed a huge bunch of trees here in the U.S. that are growing right up to your front door.
And these trees weren't planted by Saddam Hussein, either.
Had the Israelis not been willing to do what needed to be done, Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons fifteen years ago. We are merely going in to finish the job the Israelis started so effectively in 1981.
It's time to go after Pakistan, China, N Korea, India and keep an eye on S Africa, Libya, Brazil, whatever. I have no problem with blowing up all nuke manufaturing devices all over the world. In fact, we we don't do it now, we either will have to do it later or someone else may be doing it to us first.
This is a Warm War that will take generations to win. But the only successful end point is one in which the young Islamics, particularly the women, reject Islamic law.
Prior to 9/11 there were quite a few threads at FR where people were advocating the nukeing of NYC.
The man who spends thousands of dollars to secure his front door but leaves his back door unlocked is a bigger fool than the man who doesn't bother locking any of his doors.
What they actually mean is "We [the left] haven't won the debate yet!", or when they say the right is stifling dissent, they actually mean "You don't agree with our positions yet!"
I mean the nerve of the right. Calling the left's positions unpatriotic simply because they are anti-American.
Saddam is a source of money, arms and a safe haven for terrorist organizations. This is well documented. This cannot be tolerated anymore. Also, Islamics are very symbolic. Saddam is a symbol of the "great defier of America" because he stood up to America and "won". Every day he stays in power, these terrorists grow bolder.
Removing Saddam has profound implications. It will seriously demoralize Islamic terrorists throughout the world. Once the terrorists think that they cannot win, they will lose support and give up attacking.
A better question is: Why should Saddam be left in power?
Well, not I.
Where else can a person get a traveling freak show for the price of a subway token?
Last time I took the subway I was entertained by "Chickenman". Guy actually had a nylon over his head with feathers in it and collected "choice" scraps of newspaper and carefully folded them and put them in a bag.
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.