Iraq, Part 2
August 5th 2008 05:03
I must not have any liberal readers. Afraid of facts I guess. Well, here’s part 2, a shredding of the Liberal positions:
We would have won in Afghanistan by now: MYTH. There is absolutely no way to know, and we’ve had crack troops after Osama. I also point to the Soviets, who in the 1980s had no luck beating Osama and his revolutionaries. These resistance fighters became the Taliban. They know the country, they know the land. Osama rose to power through this conflict.
The difference that will make it possible for us to be more successful than the Soviets: We are bringing freedom to Afghanistan, not the subjugation the Soviets brought. So, we will continue to gain more and more support from the countryside and the places to hide will get fewer and fewer. Yes, more troops could help, but not a lot. It’s about numbers of tribal allies, not number of U.S. troops.
Being in Iraq is not why Al-Qaeda still lives on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. The good will of the Afghan people, which will continue to fade, is why they still survive there.
Darfur: This one goes something like this: “If we went into Iraq to stop genocide, then we should have gone to Darfur.” The libs continue the argument by using this to prove that it must not have been out of care for the Iraqi people. BOGUS. This, like Afghanistan, is another straw man. If President Bush had tried to send troops to Darfur, he would have been blocked by the Dems or continuously hounded about every single tragic U.S death just like he is about Iraq.
Remember, these are the same Democrats that one minute want to give the terrorist in Guantanamo the same rights as U.S. citizens, and the next claim the Afghan front is a failure because bin Laden isn’t dead. Which is it? Kill them or presume them innocent and bring them to trial. I can just see bin Laden captured under Obama and getting off on a technicality. (Yeah, I’m a blogger, I’m allowed to make editorial digs like that  )
Iraqis lives are worse: Yeah, freedom sucks, doesn’t it? Unemployment is high and there are still pockets of instability. However, there are more hospitals, schools and libraries. Education is pluralistic. Their economy is growing a lot faster than ours, they have free elections now and the jobs will come.
The biggest issue, and the Bush administration cannot be blamed for this, is that Christians have had to flee in large numbers. They were the targets of EVERY other sect when innocents were being targeted. However, once stability has been won, you’ll see Christians come back. They’ll be able to go back with the ability to participate in their country’s future. That was Saddam’s only redeeming quality: he was an equal opportunity oppressor, so all faiths and sects were equally unsafe.
War is never the answer: These idiots would be breathing poison gas or goose stepping if we listened to them. They see somebody mugging an old lady and instead of jumping the mugger, they say, “Hey, son, did you have a tough childhood? Was your environment bad? Let’s talk about this.”
Sometimes you have to go to war. When diplomacy fails and intelligence points to a threat, when a dictator ignores the Security Council, you go to war. A few dozen countries went with us, and nobody, no army, no nation, tries harder to minimize civilian casualties, even when it increases our own.
I hate war. I wish we could have peace. I wish nobody tried to take from others by force. It would be great if everybody just got along. It’s called Utopia, and it is unattainable by humans outside of Heaven. In the meantime, we can all strive to treat our neighbors with love. That doesn’t mean lying down and letting them stomp on our heads. Except for his foul language, Dog the Bounty Hunter provides a good example each episode: Get them down, get them subdued, get them cuffed, then love the heck out of them while you take them to get the help they need.
We would have won in Afghanistan by now: MYTH. There is absolutely no way to know, and we’ve had crack troops after Osama. I also point to the Soviets, who in the 1980s had no luck beating Osama and his revolutionaries. These resistance fighters became the Taliban. They know the country, they know the land. Osama rose to power through this conflict.
The difference that will make it possible for us to be more successful than the Soviets: We are bringing freedom to Afghanistan, not the subjugation the Soviets brought. So, we will continue to gain more and more support from the countryside and the places to hide will get fewer and fewer. Yes, more troops could help, but not a lot. It’s about numbers of tribal allies, not number of U.S. troops.
Being in Iraq is not why Al-Qaeda still lives on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. The good will of the Afghan people, which will continue to fade, is why they still survive there.
Darfur: This one goes something like this: “If we went into Iraq to stop genocide, then we should have gone to Darfur.” The libs continue the argument by using this to prove that it must not have been out of care for the Iraqi people. BOGUS. This, like Afghanistan, is another straw man. If President Bush had tried to send troops to Darfur, he would have been blocked by the Dems or continuously hounded about every single tragic U.S death just like he is about Iraq.
Remember, these are the same Democrats that one minute want to give the terrorist in Guantanamo the same rights as U.S. citizens, and the next claim the Afghan front is a failure because bin Laden isn’t dead. Which is it? Kill them or presume them innocent and bring them to trial. I can just see bin Laden captured under Obama and getting off on a technicality. (Yeah, I’m a blogger, I’m allowed to make editorial digs like that  )
Iraqis lives are worse: Yeah, freedom sucks, doesn’t it? Unemployment is high and there are still pockets of instability. However, there are more hospitals, schools and libraries. Education is pluralistic. Their economy is growing a lot faster than ours, they have free elections now and the jobs will come.
The biggest issue, and the Bush administration cannot be blamed for this, is that Christians have had to flee in large numbers. They were the targets of EVERY other sect when innocents were being targeted. However, once stability has been won, you’ll see Christians come back. They’ll be able to go back with the ability to participate in their country’s future. That was Saddam’s only redeeming quality: he was an equal opportunity oppressor, so all faiths and sects were equally unsafe.
War is never the answer: These idiots would be breathing poison gas or goose stepping if we listened to them. They see somebody mugging an old lady and instead of jumping the mugger, they say, “Hey, son, did you have a tough childhood? Was your environment bad? Let’s talk about this.”
Sometimes you have to go to war. When diplomacy fails and intelligence points to a threat, when a dictator ignores the Security Council, you go to war. A few dozen countries went with us, and nobody, no army, no nation, tries harder to minimize civilian casualties, even when it increases our own.
I hate war. I wish we could have peace. I wish nobody tried to take from others by force. It would be great if everybody just got along. It’s called Utopia, and it is unattainable by humans outside of Heaven. In the meantime, we can all strive to treat our neighbors with love. That doesn’t mean lying down and letting them stomp on our heads. Except for his foul language, Dog the Bounty Hunter provides a good example each episode: Get them down, get them subdued, get them cuffed, then love the heck out of them while you take them to get the help they need.
| 55 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
But my question which is still yet to be answered is this:
According to the UN charter, Is it not the obligation of an occupying power to restore civil order and infrastructure? But the only way to restore order is to get the fuck out and leave them to beat the pis out of each other...strange connundrum no?