Are Democrats to Wimpy to Fight a War
Bob says terrorists love Kerry!
Bob:
Why not get the puppeteer's hand out of the back of your jacket and come up with an original thought or two. I could turn on Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or any of the Republican flacks who all parrot these remarks much like the Allawi speech paralleled a Bush speech made earlier that week.
Just because Kerry, who voted to give the president the right to make the decision to go to war, doesn't mean in hindsight there might not have been other options. Kerry sees the Neo-Con agenda as dangerous because it presumes we are right in our actions because those actions fit with their ideology; and second, this "go it alone" attitude will isolate the US from our traditional western allies. Since you see a clash of cultures, the West vs. Islam, I think cowboy diplomacy is not going to benefit us in the long term.
Kerry's words could be compared with Nixon's plan for Peace with Honor, but I don't think he is saying we will immediately pull out and leave Iraq in chaos. The Democrats have been willing to wage war many times and the Republican notion that all Democrats are wimpy peaceniks just isn't supported by history.
Let's look at the phrase "Kerry is clearly the favorite for terrorists". This is very simplistic. You lump insurgents in the Shiite majority, former Baathist and Sunnis in the same pot as OBL fanatics. I would wager most of the fighting is being conducted by Iraqis with no prior or current connection to OBL. What we are witnessing is a civil war being fueled by both outsiders but also by regional and ethnic conflicts that were suppressed by the former Baathist regime. One need only look to the former Yugoslavia to see what may repeat itself in Iraq with a struggle for power, ethnic cleansing, and old scores to settle.
Power in Saddam's regime was theoretically secular, but his followers and supporters were mainly Sunni. Since they are a minority and Saddam brutally crushed the Shiite uprising after the first gulf war, I have not doubt that many Shiites want both power and revenge. The Kurds likewise have scores to settle.
Since the war on terrorism is not directly related to this ethnic strife, I suggest that Kerry's comments were intended to say, we need help in aiding the Iraqis in establishing a new regime. One that won't be hostile to us once we leave. Other nations who may be seen as more neutral than the US by Iraqis should be enlisted to help sort this out.
Perhaps with Iraq at peace, we can actually focus our attention on those who would attack us in the US. Is the Bush comment that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than at home a cynical way of saying, "Let's topple a regime and create a power vacuums. This vacuum will entice the terrorists to try to enter Iraq to gain political power. This now gives us a target which we can now attack which is a sovereign state rather than a loose organization of fanatics all over the globe." I think this just might be the Neo-Con grand plan.
Bob:
Why not get the puppeteer's hand out of the back of your jacket and come up with an original thought or two. I could turn on Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or any of the Republican flacks who all parrot these remarks much like the Allawi speech paralleled a Bush speech made earlier that week.
Just because Kerry, who voted to give the president the right to make the decision to go to war, doesn't mean in hindsight there might not have been other options. Kerry sees the Neo-Con agenda as dangerous because it presumes we are right in our actions because those actions fit with their ideology; and second, this "go it alone" attitude will isolate the US from our traditional western allies. Since you see a clash of cultures, the West vs. Islam, I think cowboy diplomacy is not going to benefit us in the long term.
Kerry's words could be compared with Nixon's plan for Peace with Honor, but I don't think he is saying we will immediately pull out and leave Iraq in chaos. The Democrats have been willing to wage war many times and the Republican notion that all Democrats are wimpy peaceniks just isn't supported by history.
Let's look at the phrase "Kerry is clearly the favorite for terrorists". This is very simplistic. You lump insurgents in the Shiite majority, former Baathist and Sunnis in the same pot as OBL fanatics. I would wager most of the fighting is being conducted by Iraqis with no prior or current connection to OBL. What we are witnessing is a civil war being fueled by both outsiders but also by regional and ethnic conflicts that were suppressed by the former Baathist regime. One need only look to the former Yugoslavia to see what may repeat itself in Iraq with a struggle for power, ethnic cleansing, and old scores to settle.
Power in Saddam's regime was theoretically secular, but his followers and supporters were mainly Sunni. Since they are a minority and Saddam brutally crushed the Shiite uprising after the first gulf war, I have not doubt that many Shiites want both power and revenge. The Kurds likewise have scores to settle.
Since the war on terrorism is not directly related to this ethnic strife, I suggest that Kerry's comments were intended to say, we need help in aiding the Iraqis in establishing a new regime. One that won't be hostile to us once we leave. Other nations who may be seen as more neutral than the US by Iraqis should be enlisted to help sort this out.
Perhaps with Iraq at peace, we can actually focus our attention on those who would attack us in the US. Is the Bush comment that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than at home a cynical way of saying, "Let's topple a regime and create a power vacuums. This vacuum will entice the terrorists to try to enter Iraq to gain political power. This now gives us a target which we can now attack which is a sovereign state rather than a loose organization of fanatics all over the globe." I think this just might be the Neo-Con grand plan.
Comments
________________________
If I agree with Republican positions, I am a puppet. If you agree with Democrat positions, you are a strong independent thinker.
The alternative to war was to do nothing. This is what Clinton did.
Saddam would still be in power. He would still be accumulating billions of dollars from the corrupt Food for Oil program, funding his secret, illegal technical research programs into developing WMD and getting ready to create more WMD at the first opportunity when he succeeded in lobbying his bribed partners to cease the sanctions.
If you think the war was a mistake, you should vote for Kerry.
I think the world is much better off without Saddam. If the experiment of trying to establish a democracy in Iraq works, this would be a fabulous success.
Even if you believe that the current Prime Minister of Iraq is a puppet of Bush, it is a hell of a lot better for an American puppet to be in charge of Iraq than for Saddam Hussein to be in charge of Iraq.
The foreign terrorists and the former Baathists and the religious fundamentalists all would like to see the dream of Democracy in Iraq fail.
Bush has expressed the clear intention to stick it out and finish what we started. Kerry saying that the war was a gigantic diversion, a "colossal" mistake does not lend anyone to conclude that we should stick it out, or ask one more soldier to be the "last soldier to die for a colossal mistake."
Nor is this pessimistic view of the Iraq war going to motivate any other country to send their soldiers to die in place of Americans in the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time.
No one said it would be easy to stitch the different Iraqi factions together, but if there is a way to do it, it must be by means of a secular, democratic state.
Who would have thought that Afghanistan could have such successful and smooth elections as they did last weekend? (Were Democrats disappointed?) One can only hope that the people of Iraq also see that the alternative to perpetual civil war is democratic government.
Bush is putting he emphasis on offense, taking the war to the terrorists. Democrats seem to put the emphasis on defense: waiting until we are attacked and then formulating a carefully limited response, limiting the response to the “criminals” who attacked, building more fire stations to clean up the next attack, x-raying container ships, etc.
I think it is a good thing that Terrorists are pouring over the borders into Iraq to fight our military. Much better to lure the terrorists out in the open to fight our military in Iraq. If the terrorists were not in Iraq fighting our military, where would they be? Perhaps pouring over our borders, looking for things to blow up.
As for Democrats being wimps, I think that is more true today than it was thirty years ago. Vietnam seemed to kill the fighting spirit of the Democrats. Every fight is now seen as another Vietnam, another quagmire.
Plus, Democrats place partisan considerations ahead of an objective view of the geopolitical situation. This is the only way to explain why otherwise patriotic Americans, at times, almost seem to be rooting for America to lose in Iraq, always emphasizing the negative about every situation, reporting bad news, ignoring good news. Since the Democrats would find it easier to win if Bush screws up the war, they are hoping he screws up the war, even when it means that our country will lose a war.
__________________________________________
My opening jab was that your comments are almost verbatim the talking points of the Republican flacks. Some of you liberal audience thinks that your are being lazy and not providing any analysis, just providing trite talking points. I appreciate you response.
I have already express my reasons why I think Bush lost my vote by hyping the WMD issue. It is my belief that this was a deliberate ends-justifies-the-means method of getting us into Iraq. This in turn causes me to ask, what else has this administration put out as fact that is equally flawed? With the nation focused on Iraq, these other issues don't get any nation attention.
I don't think that because there might have been another way to get rid of Saddam means that now we should cut and run. We have broken the egg, we and have a responsiblity to clean up the mess.
It is very difficult to say, wrong war wrong time, and not sound like Kerry is going to pull the troops the day after the inaguration. This just isn't going to happen.
Republicans should welcome a Democratic victory in November. If rebuilding Iraq succeeds in democracy, the Republicans can claim credit. If Iraq turns to civil war, the Republicans can blame the waffling Kerry and the Democrats.
More seriously, Bush's go it alone (sans France, Germany, etc.) attitude can't be helpful in the war on terrorism. Al Queada is all over the Middle East, Southeast Asia and yes, South America. Many question whether toppling Saddam defeats Islamic terrorism or incites it.
Bush supporters seem to think that Bush's post 9/11 war on terrorism is unique. Democrats would not have struck back. However, as admitted by Madeline Albright, 9/11 changed everything. No sitting president would have done nothing after 9/11.
Remember, Bush did nothing until 9/11. Anything you have said about Clinton and Al Queada applies equally to Bush pre-911.
One final point, I cannot imagine any American actually wanting Iraq to degenerate into civil war to get Kerry elected. On the other hand, in the heat of this political season, it's a little tough to sort out actual desires from the rethoric.