If We Were To Be Driven Out
From Bush’s speech
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened.
Seems to me that that’s already happened.
Al-Qaida could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries.
Seems to me that that’s already happened.
Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.
Iran already has.
Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply.
Ah yes, the oil that it was never about
Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare.
Seems to me that that’s already happened.
Democracy movements would be violently reversed.
No more purple fingers?
We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world.
Read the reports idiot, you already have.
And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.
Who didn’t see that happening, Iraq and September 11, 2001 in the same paragraph.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East.
There is already chaos, and you have taken the hope from millions of Iraqi lives…. as well as taken hundreds of thousands more lives.
…..we must defeat al-Qaida
An enemy that did not exist in Iraq until the United States invaded and occupied the place.
So lets summarize: Bush said that the United States has to stay in Iraq to prevent from happening what his policies and military machine have created….. I can hardly wait to hear what the upper-right-quadrant WingNuts will have to say about this tomorrow.
—–
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, INside the Northwest Territory, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I agree, it’s rather phoney.
If this were true:
“…..we must defeat al-Qaida”
then Iraq would not have happened. Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia would have.
I must say I’m delighted with the Bush maneuver for two reasons. It continues his tradition of making the worst possible choice, based on political considerations.
It must be an amazing feeling to be Iraqi, and to know that the entire future of your country is being decided by a handful of American politicians trying to position themselves for November 2008.
Actually, the defeat of al Qaida cannot be accomplished by armies and invasions and the warmongering that Bush loves so much. It requires cooperation between civilized nations, pooling of intelligence about terrorist groups, covert infiltrations of cells, identification of individuals, plans, arrests, and trials on the world stage of terrorists caught, maybe at the Hague. Make it very public. Each country can be responsible for catching the terrorists within its own borders and can request undercover help from other countries if needed. Drive the terrorists out of civilized nations into nations that would support and protect them. Then make life very uncomfortable for those nations — refusal of aid, sanctions, etc. Invade if they still won’t cooperate.
If the US was really concerned about terrorism, this is what we’d actually be doing, not waging wars in the world because of the energy crunch.
Excellent point, Anney.
There HAVE been successes in the “war” on “terror”…all of which have been on the law enforcement and security side, and none of which have been on the “Let’s Send An Army To Whomp The Shit Out Another Country Where We Think Terrorists Might Be, or Maybe Not If It’s Iraq” side.
balbulican
I think a lot of the US military forces who are in Iraq could be trained for covert activity, learn the required languages, and might be much more effective operating within our borders (or other countries covertly upon their request) to identify and catch terrorists.
It really bothers me that they’re told by the US government they’re fighting terrorists in Iraq when they’re actually being tossed into the middle of a civil war and losing their limbs and lives for Bush’s folly.
And I agree. It appears that Great Britain, which has publicized the capture of terrorists, used their law enforcement personnel to accomplish that, even if some of the British “accomplishments” turned out to be duds.
And al Qaida is not the only named terrorist group. If you read unpdated information about the Madrid train bombings, several terrorist groups are mentioned as either being complicit or suspected of complicity, though they were trained in al Qaida camps in Afghanistan.
I believe he said “nucular”. (Or at least, I think I heard nucular when I listened to it this morning!).
Why do you guys hate the troops?
Just kidding. If this kinda thing continues next President (Republican OR Democrat), what are we going to do? Most of the world is opposed to these kind of stupid wars, but what can we do if America keeps electing people who continue this stupid path?