 |
Monday, January 29, 2007
I have a question for all you anti-war people out there. It's a simple question, I'll concede that there are other solutions to Iraq, all you have to do now, is answer these questions. Forget about Iraq, let's say you anti-war leftist are correct. Let's say that because of Bush's "Blunder", there are thousands, no, millions, no, better yet, billions of new terrorist all caused because of Bush's "lie". I really want to hear from you leftist on this subject.
Question 1 (A-C)
Where do you think the terrorist are? Where should we go? Are there any terrorist left?
Question 2 (A-C)
We get out of Iraq, then what? Will the terrorist stop fighting against us? If the terrorist no longer will fight us in Iraq, does that mean we win?
Since you know how we shouldn't fight, then we ought to be able to expect you to be knowledgeable enough to know how we should fight.
Posted at 07:12 pm by Avman
 | Posted by Fabulinus @ 02/03/2007 01:52 PM PST | | Jeff,
Don't hold your breath on a response from the left. They don't think beyond talking points. They don't care beyond baseless allegations. | |
| Posted by Tim @ 02/02/2007 08:27 AM PST | | Where do you think the terrorist are?
- Terrorists are everywhere, around every corner, and in every nation.
Where should we go?
- It would be nice if it were that easy. Like I said, there are terrorist cells everywhere. We need to go after these specific cells (I do not know specific locations), and we cannot fight entire nations because they support and/or harbor terrorists. This creates world wide resentment towards the US, and creates more terrorists in the process. Remember, terrorists are united under an ideology, not devotion to a nation.
Are there any terrorist left?
-Yes
We get out of Iraq, then what?
-We focus our military strength on small scale operations against specific terrorist cells.
Will the terrorist stop fighting against us?
-As long as the US remains a super power, there will always be people - terrorists - who want to see us crumble.
If the terrorist no longer will fight us in Iraq, does that mean we win?
-Define winning in Iraq? We are in Iraq for so many reasons. We extinguished the WMD threat (not that one ever existed). We removed Saddam. At this point we have won. Remember Bush's victory rally?
Today Iraq is a mess. We could remain there for years to come and hope it becomes secure. How may lives do you want to risk for Iraqi security? How many lives do you want to risk to "win?"
| |
| Posted by JGS @ 01/31/2007 09:10 AM PST | | Your questions can't really be answered separately but I will try to address them both.
Iraq was never a significant promoter, producer or supplier of terrorists - that's to say no more than other countries like Saudia Arabia (they both paid off families of suicide bombers). Iraq was a country Bush thought we could easily defeat and that had a lot of oil. I don't think we can go anywhere else right now - even if we got out of Iraq (and I'm not sure we should despite my significant liberal leanings) - because we depleted our military and our standing in the world.
If Bush really wanted to tackle terrorism he would've dealt with the country that supports, arms and finances more terrorism than any other in the world: Iran. They fund and arm Hezbollah, which has killed both Americans and Israelis and taken an entire country hostage (Lebanon). Iran also has very close relations with Syria - another funder and supplier of terrorism. Syria also harbors known terrorists and allows them to plan, coordinate and conduct operations from their soil. Iran is now also a major funder of Hamas. Iran is also setting up treaties and relations with both African and South American countries to create a disturbing alliance of anti-American countries.
While we have weakened ourselves in this unnecessary and terribly expensive (in terms of money and our fighting men and women who have been killed or wounded), Iran is only stronger. And, of course, they are building nuclear weapons and have no intent to halt that effort.
Iraq was nothing compared to Iran, but we can't deal with Iran effectively because we couldn't even deal with Iraq effectively.
You asked. I answered. This is my perspective. | |
| Posted by Jeff @ 01/30/2007 05:51 PM PST | | Marc, how can you expect people to think they are wrong when you won't show us a better way?
The question was never about if Iraq was/is better before we went there, the questions presumed that all that you stated about Iraq is correct, yet, you continued to stick to the talking points about how bad Iraq is.
What you are failing to do is show us a solution, and I'm talking about something bigger than "Get tough on terrorist"
I am humbled, I am being humble enough to say, 'I don't have all the answers, perhaps there is a better way'.
If you don't have a better solution, perhaps it is you, sir, that needs to be more humbled. | |
| Posted by Jeff @ 01/30/2007 05:46 PM PST | | Marc, you'd make a good politician. You said a whole lot, and some people might have been convinced that it's an answer, but you still left so many more things left open.
Airport Security? Are you suggesting even more airport security than we currently have? Let me guess, the ports, right? You'd stiffen security on the ports but what about illegal immigration? You talk the talk on security, but what is your stand on illegal immigration? Would you continue to allow people to cross over our borders illegally? Would you reward them with free healthcare, etc?
Nevermind that question, I'm still searching for an answer for the original questions.
The questions are ASSUMING that you are correct, in that Iraq is a quagmire. That being said, you can lay off the talking points and move forward. Is this what we can expect from the left if/when we pull out of Iraq? That their solution is to continue talking about how bad Iraq is, punish the American people with more laws, all while talking, but not doing anything, about how tough your going to get with terrorist?
| |
| Posted by Marc Valdez @ 01/30/2007 04:45 PM PST | | Is Iraq a better place since Saddam Hussein has been overthrown? I would have hoped so - that was the most important reason for overthrowing him, after all - but, sadly, it does not seem to be the case. Large numbers (about 10% of the population, if I recall) have left for Jordan and other places. The government is barely functional (at least Hussein had reliable electricity). At least Hussein's violence was predictable - the current terror isn't.
Did conservatives care about all the Iraqis killed by Hussein, or about the many more being killed now? Give me a break! Human life is cheap to conservatives.
Want constructive suggestions? Withdraw now from Iraq. Impeach Bush. And we need a little bit of humility from conservatives, who were not only wrong, but weren't even as farsighted as clairvoyants like Michael Moore, who saw this whirlwind of guano coming several years ago. | |
| Posted by ric ottaiano @ 01/30/2007 09:38 AM PST | | | Marc: as Kevin the Irishman said in "Braveheart": "just answer the fookin question" | |
| Posted by ric ottaiano @ 01/30/2007 09:35 AM PST | | | great series of questions to which you will receive absolutely no answers...libs are great at offering criticism with 20/20 hindsight, but offer constructive suggestions? not so good... | |
| Posted by Rich @ 01/30/2007 09:24 AM PST | | | The libs who want us out of Iraq really make me laugh. Before the war, 90% of them couldn't have found Iraq on a world map !!! Not a one of them could care less about the 100's of thousands of Iraqi people who were killed at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Jeff, the real questions you want to ask: Is the world a better place now that Hussein is gone? When you're the President, sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions. If the libs don't like our system of govt., they can always move to a middle-eastern country where I'm sure they'll be welcomed. | |
| Posted by Marc Valdez @ 01/30/2007 01:01 AM PST | | Better airport security helps deter attacks. But they haven't stopped fighting - we'll see them again. As long as they don't have a base of operations, like Afghanistan, it's harder for them to mount attacks. But if we continue to split our forces, we give them opportunities. It's unlikely Al Qaeda can make Iraq a base because Al Qaeda is foreign to Iraq, and overshadowed by various militias (like the al-Sadr brigade) inside Iraq.
One of the major lessons of 9/11 is that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not our allies in a real sense. The Saudis see us as their mercenaries and the Pakistanis loathe us. We have to watch out for our own interests there. We need to have the flexibility to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan, whether, Pakistan likes it or not, if we think it's a good thing. Right now, we don't have permission from the Pakistanis, so we let bin Laden and company live.
Al Qaeda will attack us, for sure, when they can. By fighting in Iraq, where they have few fighters or resources at stake, we weaken ourselves at little cost to them. It's not the way to win a long-term struggle.
More time has now passed since our invasion of Iraq than America spent involved in WWII, and victory is receding day by day. It's time to dump the diversionary struggle and focus on the main fight. And that means withdrawing our forces from Iraq and not committing them in other diversionary struggles (like Iran). It means we should start paying attention to the history of the region and stop pretending slogans about freedom are a substitute for hard work. | |
| Posted by Jeff @ 01/29/2007 09:38 PM PST | | I'm sorry Marc, but your answer begs even more questions.
If they are "fat and happy" as you suggest and "capable of attacking us" then why haven't they if George Bush has made us weaker? Did they choose to stop fighting?
Did they decide that George Bush was too stupid for them to attack this nation while he was still President?
Did we win by default since they are no longer attacking us? Or are they really going to attack us?
Would you rather us attack our allies in Suadi Arabia and Pakistan? Is that your suggestion? | |
| Posted by Marc Valdez @ 01/29/2007 09:02 PM PST | | Your questions aren't very sophisticated (pass the brie and the chardonnay please...) but I'll give it a shot....
Do you mean Al Qaeda terrorists, or the Sunni salafist weekend warriors we've been fighting in Iraq, or who? Lots of different kinds of terrorists in the world!
Most Al Qaeda terrorists are just where they've always been - fat and happy, in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan among other places. There's a group exiled from Afghanistan up on the northern Pakistani border, but since our ally Pakistan refuses to endorse foreign action against them, we don't do a thing against them. They still have oil money at their disposal, and will be in a position to strike us again if they want.
Our intervention in Iraq did nothing against Al Qaeda, but did stir up new terrorists in Iraq. These terrorists aren't very mobile, however, and if we withdraw, even now, we will have little to fear from them, just like we didn't suffer attacks from the Viet Cong after we left Vietnam.
We have already lost in Iraq. We will never win anything of significance there, except maybe Kurdish autonomy. We should maintain a small base there to keep the peace up north, but everywhere else, we need to get the hell out. Not even the oil is worth it - without peace, there's no good way to get the oil out.
Al Qaeda has made clear they will continue to attack us from now on. It would be nice if we stopped playing their game and started thinking about how we could win, for a change. We could attack them, for a start. But wait! We are trapped in an Iraqi quagmire! Too bad for us! Too bad we listened to conservatives, who love nothing so much as losing..... | |
| Posted by Jeff @ 01/29/2007 08:15 PM PST | | GM, I really don't expect an answer, but if they do, I'll leave it up!
AOW, I'm spreading the word as much as I can, hopefully others will pass the word on and maybe, just maybe, we'll find one of those intelligent Liberals out there who knows what the answers are. | |
| Posted by Always On Watch @ 01/29/2007 08:12 PM PST | | | You should send out a bulletin if you get any answers. IMO, all will be silence in that regard. | |
| Posted by GM Roper @ 01/29/2007 08:10 PM PST | | I'm assuming that by asking the questions you are really expecting an answer. Really? From the left?
Good luck! | |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
