Bush in Iraq with troops-----

uhm, the brutal assasination business? who are we assasinating, al queda members and Sadaam Fedayeen? you have a problem with that? perhaps you preferred Iraq w/ Sadaam in Power when the "assasination business" could be conducted by Uday, Qusay and the rest of Sadaam's henchmen. They were much more efficient assasins than we are- they killed at least 300,000 of their own people!

 

First, I did say "half the country" in the original post.

Second, since when does the political act of declaing something "national security" remove that action from scrutiny and criticism? It's the U. S. of freakin's A. buddy. get used to it.

Third, when you say, "is in fact virulently..." I think you meant to say, "is after the fact virulently..." At least that's the way I look at it.

Fourth, I like cheese.

 

i would've thought the national security aspect of the war on terror would've been self-evident. i don't mean to suggest that there shouldn't have been a debate about whether Iraq was a valid extension of that war, only that when troops are put in harm's way it's time to close ranks. second guessing can wait until after the mission has succeeded. and yes, i do believe all the second guessing that's going on in this country is making the job of our troops in Iraq harder and more dangerous. Some democrats, including Evan Byah, Joe Biden, and the demon-b****-from-hell-herself Hillary Clinton understand this. The democratic candidiates, particularly Dean, are pandering to the left's worst instincts, trying to capitalize on the feeling of powerlessness that arises out of being defeated at the pols the last few elections, and residual anger of the Florida2K fiasco.

And no, the opportunistic anti-americanism predates the war- what else can you call the actions of de Villepin at the UN?

 

You back up my original point perfectly - we we're ALL asleep at the wheel before 9/11. In my original reply, I did not blame Clinton (or prop up the GOP congress had to work with). Not unlike most of us, Miller's attitude is a post 9/11 epiphany. But now that we do live in a post 9/11 world, we (all) should learn from our past mistakes and misjudgments.

If that means removing those "now" who would move to do any of us harm "later", then so be it - that's an easy call to make.

 

I know, I know - how dare someone share an opinion in an opinion forum.

Perhaps next time, I'll offer an opinion that meets your plateau of being taken seriously...perhaps one from an established foreign policy wiz like Hillary Clinton.

 

The problem is how do you identify those who would harm us later and deal with them in a way so as not to make more of those who would harm us later or weaken our already fragile international standing? Our history in identifying threats to the country is, at best, excessive. This path, while perhaps necessary in very specific instances, will be an unmitigated disaster if pursued as policy. Again, we're confusing tactics with strategy.

There's an old saying that the best revenge is living well and the way we live well is to pursue the ideas and ideals that made the 20th Century the American Century... individual freedom, democracy, judiciously restrained capitalism, creation of middle classes, fair and impartial justice, etc. Instead, we're letting our tactical response to 9-11 and an unnecessary war in Iraq undercut those messages and in the long run, that's the worse thing that can happen.

We can never be completely safe, but we can create the opportunity for more people to choose a life that is not rooted in violence and despair. Our current policies seem to be having the opposite effect.

 

Given that the atrocities of 9/11 occurred prior to the wars in afghanistan and iraq, which policies are you referring to?

 

The fundamental divide in america today is not between liberal and conservative, republican and democrat, but between those who still view the world as it was on Sept. 10, and those of us who see the world as it was on Sept. 12. RR, Sam, Glynch, etc, are still living in a pre-9/11 world.

 

Stop being such an *******. You have no clue what kind of world I live in.

But since we're labeling each other, you're living in don quixote world of attacking windmills while real real live dragons are knocking on your doorstep, while you blissfully swallow the party line. The divide is between fools like you and the rest of us.

 

tiresome/.

 

Sam, as a result of your profane language and personal insult, your color has been changed to yellow. A second outburt will result in a red and an immediate trip to the principal's office. If we are going to act like third graders, then we must adhere to their disciplinary policies as well.

 

basso,
I assume you can see why this could upset one of those guys. You're basically calling them stupid, even though I don't think you mean it exactly like that.

Some of us view it like this: the fundamental divide is between those of us who understood that most of the world lives with yearly injustices similar to 9-11 before it happened and those of us who still seem to believe that we have suffered more of an injustice than any other people.

 

i meant it as i said it, they still look at the world as if the attacks of 9/11 had never happened. what i mean by that is there's a certain naivetee in the way they think we should deal with countries or terrorist entities that wish us harm. I'm much more of a realist. i see the current war as one between the forces of islamic fascists (evil) and those of western civilization (enlightenment). i believe if we are going to win this war we must be as ruthless and determined as they are. and i suppose the final disconnect is that i view this as War and my sense is that they don't. to paraphrase sean connery's character in "The Untouchables," they've come into our home, murdered our wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, now, "What are you prepared to do?"

 

Okay, basso. My take: I don't think you throw gallons of water at a grease fire when the grease fire is precariously close to the cooking oil.

We'll fight hate with hate and generate some more hate.

We have to hunt down the whackos of Al Qaeda and exterminate them. We are doing some of that, but meanwhile, in my view (and in the view of many) we are busily creating more and more terrorist recruits and losing valuable sympathizing intelligence with hamfisted, misguided policies.

I don't see how our differing points of view (mine and yours) mean that I am somehow ignoring 9-11. I think the hawks that propose us weeding the rest of the world like it's our backyard are ignoring reality.

basso, I believe they are choking us all with the smoke of ignorant hubris. Ask yourself: who have we won to our side? Where has our righteousness made new converts to our supposedly sensible, righteous cause? If the war is as you set it, a sect of Islamic extremism versus western civilization, is the latter really just the US, a non-majority of the UK, and a non-majority of Australia?

 

Tiresome? If it's tiresome then maybe you should come after me with one of those hand-held WMD's you dutifully warned us about in that other thread.....

 

I'm not sure i accept the argument that it's necessary to "win to our side" governments such as those in France, Germany, and Berkeley to win this war. IF we win, they'll come around. Let us remember who was attacked, and where. Why should matters of critical importance the security of the United States and its citizens be held hostage to the diplomatic whims of countries who don't truly want us to succeed?

I guess there's one final disconnect here between those who accept that the Oraq war is a valid extension of the war on terror and those who don't. To me, the case is self-evident, but i understand that there are those who feel differently. I also feel if we build a successful democracy in Iraq they too will come around. What i cannot abide is the relentless attempts to politicize the war and its aftermath for partisan political gain. this is a tremendously difficult, dangerous, honorable thing we are attempting to do and all who truly value liberty, democracy, and freedom should wish the mission's success. Vote GWB out of office because you don't like his policies on abortion, gay marriage, or the economy, but not because he's proven to be a kind of Wlison/Teddy Roosevelt hybrid- a nation-builder with a big stick. It's what the times call for.

 

I thought windmills were real and dragons imaginary?!

 

It's because he's not and any comparison to Teddy Roosevelt or Wilson is a joke. The Bushies are the anti Teddy Roosevelt - Roosevelt actually served his country in war unlike most of the chicken hawks making decisions now, and Roosevelt was arguably the first tree hugging President. The Bushies are the anti-Wilson since they seem on destroying international coalitions. The Bushies can't even finish Afghanistan (two years later and we have security in about ten percent of the country) because they are afraid of the Pakistanis, and they screwed up the first months of the occupation of Iraq because they are too proud to admit they made a mistake ( not enough troops, firing the entire government then letting chaos reign for weeks) or too stupid to realize that they made a mistake so it takes six months for a change in plan.

 

I'm sure one can find holes in almost any comparison, and the analogy may not be exact, but Wilson is best remembered for his advocacy of the league of Nations, and his belief that liberal democracy was the best hope of mankind. Wilson's reasons were idealist, and I think Bush's are realist- He's doing it not because he's had some sort of visitation from the Ghosts-of-nationbuilders-past, but because he sees it, after decades of coddling dictators in the middle east (including on his father's watch- since when do fathers and sons have to agree?), as the best way of ensuring the security of the US.