Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While I agree completely that President Bush has done a poor job of explaining the need for the Iraq War (and I cannot explain why, although the Stratfor analysis may be the correct one), I explained it in the article "It Will Be The End of Liberalism" last October. (Go Here).
I can summarize it very quickly. A century from now, maybe a half century from now, the world will either resemble the US - dominated by regimes that protect political freedom, religious freedom, economic freedom, and representative government of some kind - or it will be the Third Caliphate - the Eternal Islamic Reich .
The Islamic world is at a cross road - either it will go the way of the radical Jihadis, who are willing to kill anyone to impose their imperialism, or it will go the way of the moderates who wish to live in peace with those of other religions, but are unwilling to engage in terrorism to enforce their agenda. The Islamic world is having its Inquisition, its Crusades, and its Reformation - all at the same time, and it is anybody's guess, which will win out - the Inquisition and the Crusade, or the Reformation.
But, since those who are willing to kill indiscriminately always have a tactical advantage over those who do not, guess who is most likely to win this debate?
The US is intervening, as it should, in the hope that it can nudge the debate toward moderation and tolerance of multiculturalism and diversity. Toward the Reformation.
This effort may or may not succeed. If it does not, it will presage the end of Western Civilization as we know it, the end of classical Liberalism, and Modern Liberalism, since it will signal that America and Western Civilization are unwilling to do whatever it takes to defend its existence against radicalized Islam. And the next century will not belong to America, but to Islam, not a modern, liberal Islam, but a conservative, reactionary Islam, to the Taliban, to Al Qaeda, to the Sharia.
And for those who are getting all excited, hysterical indeed, about the Downing Street Memo - you may (or may not) remember that the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991.
After the Gulf War there was never a peace treaty, or a surrender. There was a cease-fire contingent on Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, with which Saddam never complied. The US patrolled the "no fly zone" throughout the Clinton administration, and escalated to bombing and missile attacks on Iraqi military targets several times during the Clinton administration.
I never heard libs and dems complain about this during the Clinton administration. They only complain when a Republican does it. The hypocrisy reeks. And the intellectual dishonesty stinks
If the US began taking out Iraqi military targets in 2002 and early 2003, before the invasion of Iraq - my opinion? Not a moment too soon, in fact, it should have been done ten years sooner. In my opinion, the Saddam Hussein regime should have been terminated in 1991. It didn't happen, so 2003, 2004, 2005, is a helluva lot better than never.
Hitler staged his Beer Hall Putsch in, what was it, 1932? - with a few dozen of his buddies who became known as The Brown Shirts. Every revolution starts small. If Hitler had been taken out in 1938 (as Churchill wanted to do) or before, it would have saved the world a World War. Same with Al Qaeda, Saddam, the Islamists, the Jihad, whatever you want to call them - the sooner the better. We can either deal with them before they get nukes, or after they get nukes.
Take your pick.
.Hitler staged his Beer Hall Putsch in, what was it, 1932? - with a few dozen of his buddies who became known as The Brown Shirts. Every revolution starts small
Gabriella84 said:.
Bush has spent the last 10 years or so trying to figure out how to do it better. SOURCE?
He already has the Stuffed Shirts together. Who or what do you mean by that?
"The planned neo-conservative war against Iraq had been brewing since 1991, when President H.W. Bush, together with Generals Powell and Schwartzkopf, halted U.S. forces on the way to Baghdad after bloodying the Iraqi Republican Guard on the so-called Highway of Death. A series of massacres following U.S.-inspired uprisings in the Kurdish north and Shiite south strengthened the moral case for another U.S. intervention on behlaf of the people it had so frequently betrayed. Personal considerations were added when the CIA claimed to have detected an Iraqi plot to assassinate ex-president Bushwhile he was on a visit to Kuwait, though the evidence for this alleged attempt looks a great deal sketchier in retrospect. In 1992, Wolfowitz and Libby oversaw a draft for then defense secretary Cheney of a new Defense Policy Guidance that contained implicit arguments for an invasion of Iraq (among other places), but it was onstentatiously rejected by President H.W. Bush after a leak of its contents lead to a public outcry among defense specialists."
Gabriella84 said:Ok then...
Seymour Hersh, "A Case Not Closed," The New Yorker, Nov. 11, 1993
--as detailed in "The Book on Bush" by Eric Alterman and Mark Green.
Gabriella84 said:I only respect people who respect me.
Gabriella84 said:Ok then...
Seymour Hersh, "A Case Not Closed," The New Yorker, Nov. 11, 1993
--as detailed in "The Book on Bush" by Eric Alterman and Mark Green.
