> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:08 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy. > > On 5/12/07, Jim wrote: > > > > > > Bringing up these attacks only serves to remind us that we've failed > to > > destroy an enemy (al-Qaeda) that has attacked us (as you note, > multiple > > times) > > > Personally I don't think we're going to destroy Al Qaeda anytime soon. > Contain them, yes, but destory them? It's very hard to destroy an idea, > even > an evil one. See neo-Nazism in the U.S. as an example.
I would agree... but we've no chance to even contain them while distracted by Iraq. > while spending wildly to neutralize an enemy that never did (Saddam). > > > So you think Saddam had perfectly harmless motives from an American > perspective when he invaded Kuwait? When he tried to have former > President > Bush assassinated? When he paid thousands of dollars to the families of > suicide bombers in Israel? What does that mean? "From an American perspective" he meant harm and he inflicted it. From an American security standpoint nothing he did was pragmatically dangerous to us. The plot to assassinate the president is especially speculative - there has never been any evidence to show that the president was indeed in any real danger. If such a plot actually existed it was as ineffectual as the rest of Saddam's machinations against the U.S. > The sad facts are that a) Iraq posed no actual threat to us, b) sadly > most > > terrorist attacks on American soil have been perpetrated by Americans > and > > c) > > we've placed ourselves in a position where it's difficult to respond > to > > actual threats at home and abroad. > > > This statement is so wrongheaded on so many levels, but it is clearly > what > you and many, many other people around the world believe. Saddam was on > the > verge of breaking the will of the Europeans to continue the sanctions > regime > in the UN, and he would have gone on his merry way and resumed his > search > for plutonium and the production of nuclear and biological/chemical > weapons. It's unlikely that he was "on the verge" of gaining acceptance for weapons programs. And if he did indeed pursue them then we would have had cause (and had vastly more support) for military action. He did NOT however have weapons, or even weapons programs capable of doing America (or anybody else) harm. > Were we going to stop enforcing the no-fly zone in the north? I'd like > to > know, really, I'd like to know. Would you have supported leaving the > Kurds > at the mercy of a guy who gassed them and slaughtered them by the > thousands? That's an unfair straw-man. Also a dangerous one for you: would you like me to mention the several ONGOING genocidal acts across the globe that the US seems to care little for? Do not attempt to argue humanitarian reasoning for this war unless you can explain why we ignore similar and worse every minute of every day. But forget that for a moment: are you seriously suggesting that the only way to protect the Kurds was the invasion? For the same cost we could have enforced the no-fly zone for CENTURIES. > As to the difficulties we have incurred as a result of the war, no > doubt we > have paid a price. But that is the price of supporting liberty over > tyranny. > If we will not stand up and support the cause of liberty, who will? Again, explain why liberty is important in Iraq (which was already pacified and contained) but not important elsewhere? Why did Iraqi liberty need to be addressed while we were still involved in an un-won war in Afghanistan? What feature of the situation in Iraq made it necessary to invade then, no matter what? Why was liberty in Iraq something that needed to be addressed military but the lack of common liberties in China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait something to be handled diplomatically? Why in other cases, such as Darfur, do we all but ignore gross and shocking violations of human rights? Taken, as you're attempting to, from a humanitarian angle Iraq was far down the list of the most egregious offenders. > We've made Iraq the terrorist poster child. We could leave soon which, > I > > think, would turn Iraq into a terrorist playground or stay until > things > > are > > "stable" which (if it's even possible) could easily consume as much > time > > and > > resources as we've already spent; probably more. > > > > The Iraq war has dangerously weaken America. It will go down in > history > > as > > one of the worst military blunders of our age. The Bush > administration's > > legacy will be mocking derision. > > So you think. Yes - that's why I said it. ;^) > Of all the post-invasion blunders, putting Paul Bremer in charge was > maybe > the biggest. Having Rumsfeld running DoD didn't help, either. > Nevertheless, > I think it is the willfulness of our enemies to spend lives rather than > our > own incompetence that has made the biggest difference in Iraq. Syria > and > Iran, in particular, have made every effort to derail the government of > a > democratic Iraq. The failure of DoD and State to push back on these > countries is what has concerned me most. Iran is, in my opinion, a much more dangerous foe. It was before we invaded Iraq and the invasion has strengthened it while desperately weakening us. Iran knows how weak we've become - you can see clearly that Iran neither fears nor respects the U.S. We don't have the resources to attack Iran militarily and we've little-to-no leverage economically. Why should they listen to us? They know we don't have the resources to go toe to toe but also know that if roused we could (if the American people would accept actual socially, relevant sacrifices in this war) be roused. So instead they watch us unwilling to raise taxes to pay for the war, unwilling to institute a draft to increase our armed forces and unable to come to terms with the cultural battles we're facing. They stay just polite enough to eliminate the possibility of a direct assault and instead chip away at us by providing weapons and training. While they do that they increase their dangerousness. If Iraq drags on for a few more years that will give Iran and North Korea plenty of time to develop exactly those weapons that we were told Saddam had. Our efforts in Iraq may, albeit indirectly, place nuclear weapons in the hands of two mad-men. > Once again, though, I go back to the big picture of what is at stake > here. > Iraq is the battlefield, but at stake is the course of the Middle East, > the > cause of freedom in the Arab world, and the place of militancy in > Islam. If > you think these people are going to stop attacking us because we leave > Iraq, > you are sorely mistaken. The Baathists are no longer even the big worry > in > Iraq. Al Qaeda and Iran are the main players now. They are > fundamentally our > ideological enemies, and there can be no long term peaceful co- > existence > between us. Our very existence as a nation, indeed the basic concepts > of > western civilization and democracy are anathema to Al Qaeda and to > Iranian > theocracy. Do we just ignore them and hope they go away? You seem to be addressing at least two arguments: what would happen if we leave and why did we go in the first place. I do not think that "people will stop attacking us" if we leave Iraq. The premise of my argument is that more people are attacking because we're in Iraq in the first place. Leaving now will not stem that tide. In other words the Iraq invasion made us less safe overall - that's my argument. You are correct that Al Qaeda is a major player in Iraq - we saw to it that they would be. Al Qaeda had very little presence in Iraq before we invaded (Saddam, despite some political rhetoric, was clearly much more secular than the organization was comfortable with). We are much less capable of dealing with real threats to this country. To extend the battle to the truly dangerous players now (Iran for example) the American people would have to sacrifice more than they seemingly have been willing to up until now. This war has been fought on credit: both economic credit (raising the national debt) and military credit (reducing benefits to soldiers and increasing the time served). We could have been dealing with the problems you so aptly identify: Al Qaeda and Iran. Iraq would have stayed crippled and contained. We chose the wrong battlefield the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Now we're stuck with it. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:234603 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
