This from an opponent of the war: http://www.livejournal.com/users/michaelduff/103623.html -- I don't really like the Bush Doctrine, okay? After 9-11, I thought we should confine our efforts to the Al Qaeda organization. Instead, Bush decided to condemn half the Middle East with his Axis of Evil speech and roll tanks into Iraq. It bothered me. It still bothers me. But dammit, if you look at the patterns, it seems to be working. The Middle East thinks Bush is bat**** crazy, and their governments are afraid of us. Do you get that? The bad guys are afraid of us, because against all logic and common sense, we went into Iraq and we took Saddam down. We ignored all the reasonable advice from Asia and Europe and people like me, and we went in with guns blazing. We've paid a terrible price in men and money, and we're still there. What's the lesson? **** with America and we will intervene, flagrantly, in the Middle East. So, if you want us to go home, what should you do? What will happen if we get attacked again? What will happen to the governments of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia if Al Qaeda sets off a nuke in Times Square? You think we'll just pack up and go home? Or will we stick our meddling capitalist fingers in every Middle Eastern cesspool on the planet, hoping to turn up a needle in the haystack? Middle Eastern governments want us to leave them alone. They'll snipe at us when they feel protected, funneling money to terrorist organizations when they think they won't be traced. But what happens when we follow that money home? What happens when their attempts to scare us backfire, and the crazy American president starts taking out dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'll tell you what happens. The money dries up, and governments that used to wink and nod at terrorism get on their secret satelite phones and tell their extremists to cool it, unless they want to see Marines taking showers in the palace. Bush wants to be like Reagan, and he has succeeded. Everybody thought Reagan was crazy, when he went on TV and said, "We begin bombing in five minutes." His comments scared the **** out of people. It scared us in America, and more important, it scared our enemies. In 2001, New York was burning and we were afraid. Today, there are American flags flying in Baghdad and our enemies are afraid. I don't have access to all the documents, but I must entertain the possibility, the possibility that the Bush Doctrine is working. We have been relatively safe since 9-11. Iraq is a hot zone, but there have been no major attacks on U.S. soil. Why? Because the people who finance terrorism are afraid of us. We will be hit again, okay? That fear has limits, and Bush is pissing a lot of people off. But tyrants around the world are making compromise noises because we have put the fear of God in them. And if Kerry wins this election, all of that progress will be rolled back. Europe will love us. The UN will praise us. The Arab world will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And money will start trickling back into Al Qaeda's coffers. The bad guys will tighten their grip on their respective populations, and the price we have paid will have been paid for nothing.
What's the lesson? **** with America and we will intervene, flagrantly, in the Middle East. So, if you want us to go home, what should you do? What will happen if we get attacked again? What will happen to the governments of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia if Al Qaeda sets off a nuke in Times Square? How does this help us? Al Queda hates the Middle Eastern governments. They *want* us to fight those countries, because that just creates more anti-American opinion in the MidEast, and that's what they want. It opens the door for them to create their Islamic Revolution without the corrupt secular governments (from their opinion). Opening up Iraq to a fundamentalist movement and getting us on worse terms with Middle East governments *thrilled* Al Queda. I don't have access to all the documents, but I must entertain the possibility, the possibility that the Bush Doctrine is working. So it's not that Bush Doctrine is working. It's that it <I>might be</I> working. Wonderful. We have been relatively safe since 9-11. Iraq is a hot zone, but there have been no major attacks on U.S. soil. Oh please, not this ridiculous logic again. Why? Because the people who finance terrorism are afraid of us. Or, perhaps, it's because we have been aggressively going after Al Queda and disrupting their operations - <I>that</I> part of the war on terror has been pretty successful. That has no connection to Iraq, though.
There's no question that the Bush Doctrine is working. I look forward to the liberals groping for ways to explain how this doctrine *is not* working. I look forward to them distorting America's troops' successes overseas, and mangling and twisting Administration officials' words to make them look like scoundrels. The liberals' agenda is clear -- SMEAR AMERICA. Make it look as bad as possible. SCORCHED EARTH. They will talk down the economy. They will attempt to minimize the positive gains Americans and our military have achieved. They will try to ramrod this negative outlook on voters. All in a selfish, selfish attempt to gain political clout. Pathetic. Meanwhile, articles like this bring things back into perspective. The Doctrine is working, and it is working beautifully. This must burn the liberals up.
I'll deal with the rest of your gibberish in a bit, but first off, that was hardly an "article". It was one guys opinion on a blog. That be like comparing your VICTORY laden posts here with real articles. Please. That's the problem with the web, everybody gets to be "published".
Totally agree. The war made the world stand up and take notice. We are no longer the ineffectual p*****s we were under Clinton. And Carter for that matter. If you F with us, we will F with whoever you are associated with. Muslim fundamentalists want to bomb our cities and murder our people? Maybe the next terrorist bomb that goes off should be responded to by burning Mecca to the ground. In any case, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bush Doctrine is working. Great job, by a great President and a great administration.
But make a movie that Nomar thinks is offensive to Asians, and he'll whine on an internet message board.
In case my comments were too oblique; How is it that the same people who will rationalize our invasion by virtue of the supposed constant threat Saddam posed to his neighbours, ie he was antagonistic towards them, will in the next breath also say that our invasion of Iraq followed naturally on the heels of 9-11 due to Iraq's shared responsibility with it's neighbouring countries? All they have in common is some racial ancestry, although no more than, say, Brits and Germans, and less in fact. Iraq was the nation in the region least under the influence of the religious influences so many see as the root of 9-11. It is the most transparently racist, culturalist, and ignorant argument I have heard. Iraq was antagonistic towards its neighbours, and antagonistic towards Islamic extremism. In order to send a message to Iraq's neighbours and to Islamic extremists, we have conquered the nation in the region least sympathetic to either, and it has become a haven for those it previously opposed. Nice theory. Good job. Pathetic is right.
I ask myself, How would Osama Bin Laden want us to respond to 9/11? 1. Would he want us to come after him with all of our resources? OR 2. Would he want us to divert our attention and resources to attack a secular Mid East state, that had nothing to do with 9/11, and thereby enrage muslims world wide, unite most of the world's population against us, and bog our military down in an environment that make us the perfect sitting ducks, so the Iraqi's can do his work for him? Hmmmmmm.
Posters want to post dumb crap on the BBS like this? Maybe the next stupid post like this should be responded to by that poster being banned...again.
Maybe not if youre a parrot, but a lot of people who like to think for themselves see at least some flaws in the Bush doctrine. To Quote your good buddy Howard Dean: On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent. Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community. Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies. This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries. The largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot eliminate the threat of sleeper terrorist cells. That task requires the highest level of intelligence cooperation with our allies. Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons. This calls for an aggressive and effective diplomatic effort, conducted in full cooperation with a united international community, and preferably with the backing of the multilateral institutions we helped to build for just this purpose. This challenge requires treaties – such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – that this Administration has sometimes treated cavalierly. In any case, war should be a last resort or an option to be used in the face of an imminent threat. Seriously, people could (and probably will) write books on why the Bush doctrine will not work. Running back to your fail safe position of love our leader our you don't love America. Original and Brilliant as always. Everyone is wise to your strawman tactics. It doesn't need much help for people to see that we are not in good shape here, even the Bush administration is backing off their numbers for job growth. I object to this. Very few liberals bad mouth our troops. We understand they have a job to do and our doing the best with what they have. Once again, if you support our troops, you wouldn't want them put in harms way over a lie. I support our troops, I KNOW some of them, I want them home. You seem to want them to stay in harms way to make your party look good. To you they are a tool. To me they are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. The pathetic thing is that you can't break out of your mold enough to admit when things are not just peachy keen in America. You are the selfish ones, we want what's best for the common man, not just for the rich and elite. The fact that you can say that it is working beautifully shows me just who truely out of touch you are. If you weren't such a jerk it would be sad.
i don't recall the author, or anyone else for that matter, suggesting that the bush doctrine's unfairly targets arabs, or muslims, for that matter. that's an inference you've drawn, that has no basis in reality, and is just an attempt to change the subject. it so happens that islamic fundamentalists are targeting us. when little old blue haired ladies from toledo start hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, i can assure you the bush doctrine is flexible enough to incorporate them as well. stay on point, and don't give into your own racists fears and projections.
It's completely insipid to say what the results of the doctrine are at such an early stage. Some of you say "nobody will mess with us now!" and others of us think that the more people hate our guts, the more they will mess with us. The Palestinians seem to keep "messing with" the Israelis, even if its thrown rocks versus tanks, BUT maybe it'll be different with our country. I hope so. (Overall, I strongly agree with Major's sentiments about Al Qaeda creaming in their pants when they saw us invade Iraq, but we could be wrong). We will see. Early indications are that plenty of people are ready to "mess with us" in "post-war" Iraq. But again, it's early. Duh. We will see.
You are completely contradicting yourself; On the one had you are saying this isn't about race or religion....on the other you are saying that if people of another racial demographic from another region were responsible, we'd go after them too. Problem with this: Aside from race and religion, was does Iraq have in common with the 9-11 terrorists? You say islamic fundamentalists ( misnomer, BTW, but we'll let it pass) are and should be our targets...so why do we go after the least islamically influenced nation in that entire region? Can't have it both ways...either race and religion are the common link, or Iraq and 9-11 have no more in common than 9-11 would with almost any other nation, and less than many. I didn't change the subject at all...you tried to say it wasn't relevent while arguing it at the same time.
