Discussion With a Libertarian
Here's a back and forth covering Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole "terrorist" thing. The first comment is from Rubberrat.
"The argument over whether the Iraq war has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether the Afghanistan war has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether US support for Israel has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether our relationship with Saudi Arabia has bred more terrorists (it has), etc, etc, is all rather beside the point to me, because it presumes that without any of those things that the terrorists wouldn't be doing what they are doing, and that is a complete fallacy. That list of terrorist attacks that I posted is only a fraction of the total number of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. They will attack anyone and anything that disagrees with them in their quest for power. The only way to avoid those attacks is to succumb to the terrorists, which is unthinkable. The ONLY thing we can do is fight them. We can't negotiate, we can't bargain, we can't use diplomacy effectively. We can't use butter instead of guns. All of this has been tried and tried, and the results were only to allow the extremists to acquire more power. Now we have an Islamic extremist country on the verge of nuclear power, and instead of dealing with this problem, which includes the use of that horrible word 'war', we choose to argue with each other over tactics. I guarantee you that Ahmadinejad is laughing his butt off over all this indecision and controversy, which is seen by him as a sign of extreme weakness. The reality of the situation is that it's not a question of whether we are going to war with the extremists, it's only a question of when and how. If we fail in Iraq, that will be a victory of monumental proportions for the terrorists.
The list of Democrats who endlessly speak out against the Iraq war is very long, and many of the top Democrats are doing it. A couple days ago, Harry Reid said all the money we are 'wasting' in Iraq could be used to rebuild New Orleans. Of course that was a political statement made to cater to the black vote, but that only makes it more despicable. Democrats have courted failure in Iraq ever since Saddam was toppled. Just because the job isn't a snap doesn't mean the job should be abandoned. It remains to be seen if the american people have the stomach for this fight in the long run (most times I think we don't), but I can assure you, the terrorists do. It's up to us to decide what kind of world we want, and if we can't work up the nerve to confront this type of enemy without collapsing into dissent among ourselves, we are in for a rude awakening down the road.
Bluester responds:
No it doesn't. I'm not presuming anything here. You say I'm presuming that ALL extremists would have just gone away if we hadn't gone into Iraq, supported Israel, etc. No one is saying that. Of course that wouldn't be the result. There would still be extremists, but by God there would be fewer of them. And isn't that what Bush said? He wanted a comprehensive approach to the extremist problem?
You say diplomatic approaches have been tried and tried. With who and by who.?I haven't seen ANY direct talks with N.Korea, Iran, Syria to name just three. And tell me why our country can't talk to Hamas and Hizbollah? That's ridiculous in this day and age.
For what reason would anyone believe Iraq is "winnable", whatever that could mean at this point? The plan, as I understand it is to keep doing, basically, what we are doing. Which allegedly is "standing them up, so we can stand down"( a great political phrase by the way). It has gotten worse for 3 straight years now but we are to just accept the cul-de-sac argument that says we just can't leave the mess we made. Is that leadership? More importantly, is that a plan that's credible? Don't our actions from March 2003 until the present represent the Bush administration leadership? No Democrats resposible for any of this mess. And if our nation's actions from March 2003 until now in Iraq represent a clear case of Bush administration leadership, why would anybody still believe they have ANY right answers?
Finally, I don't share the idea that middle eastern countries with nuclear capability, in itself, is that threatening. I just don't. Here's why. Pakistan has nukes and we just approved them getting more. Israel has nukes but no one is allowed to talk about them. What right does the U.S. have in picking and choosing? And I think the logic runs contrary to conservative and libertarian usual logic. If I am to believe that guns and carrying guns and not registering guns will all be a deterrent to crime; wouldn't it also follow that if all nations had nukes, international rogue acts would be deterred? It's not my argument, I'm just sayin'.
Emphases are Bluester's but thanks for asking. On a related front, I encourage the viewing of the movie, "The Island". Cloning gone corporately wild. Great thought provoking stuff.
"The argument over whether the Iraq war has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether the Afghanistan war has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether US support for Israel has bred more terrorists (it has), or whether our relationship with Saudi Arabia has bred more terrorists (it has), etc, etc, is all rather beside the point to me, because it presumes that without any of those things that the terrorists wouldn't be doing what they are doing, and that is a complete fallacy. That list of terrorist attacks that I posted is only a fraction of the total number of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. They will attack anyone and anything that disagrees with them in their quest for power. The only way to avoid those attacks is to succumb to the terrorists, which is unthinkable. The ONLY thing we can do is fight them. We can't negotiate, we can't bargain, we can't use diplomacy effectively. We can't use butter instead of guns. All of this has been tried and tried, and the results were only to allow the extremists to acquire more power. Now we have an Islamic extremist country on the verge of nuclear power, and instead of dealing with this problem, which includes the use of that horrible word 'war', we choose to argue with each other over tactics. I guarantee you that Ahmadinejad is laughing his butt off over all this indecision and controversy, which is seen by him as a sign of extreme weakness. The reality of the situation is that it's not a question of whether we are going to war with the extremists, it's only a question of when and how. If we fail in Iraq, that will be a victory of monumental proportions for the terrorists.
The list of Democrats who endlessly speak out against the Iraq war is very long, and many of the top Democrats are doing it. A couple days ago, Harry Reid said all the money we are 'wasting' in Iraq could be used to rebuild New Orleans. Of course that was a political statement made to cater to the black vote, but that only makes it more despicable. Democrats have courted failure in Iraq ever since Saddam was toppled. Just because the job isn't a snap doesn't mean the job should be abandoned. It remains to be seen if the american people have the stomach for this fight in the long run (most times I think we don't), but I can assure you, the terrorists do. It's up to us to decide what kind of world we want, and if we can't work up the nerve to confront this type of enemy without collapsing into dissent among ourselves, we are in for a rude awakening down the road.
Bluester responds:
No it doesn't. I'm not presuming anything here. You say I'm presuming that ALL extremists would have just gone away if we hadn't gone into Iraq, supported Israel, etc. No one is saying that. Of course that wouldn't be the result. There would still be extremists, but by God there would be fewer of them. And isn't that what Bush said? He wanted a comprehensive approach to the extremist problem?
You say diplomatic approaches have been tried and tried. With who and by who.?I haven't seen ANY direct talks with N.Korea, Iran, Syria to name just three. And tell me why our country can't talk to Hamas and Hizbollah? That's ridiculous in this day and age.
For what reason would anyone believe Iraq is "winnable", whatever that could mean at this point? The plan, as I understand it is to keep doing, basically, what we are doing. Which allegedly is "standing them up, so we can stand down"( a great political phrase by the way). It has gotten worse for 3 straight years now but we are to just accept the cul-de-sac argument that says we just can't leave the mess we made. Is that leadership? More importantly, is that a plan that's credible? Don't our actions from March 2003 until the present represent the Bush administration leadership? No Democrats resposible for any of this mess. And if our nation's actions from March 2003 until now in Iraq represent a clear case of Bush administration leadership, why would anybody still believe they have ANY right answers?
Finally, I don't share the idea that middle eastern countries with nuclear capability, in itself, is that threatening. I just don't. Here's why. Pakistan has nukes and we just approved them getting more. Israel has nukes but no one is allowed to talk about them. What right does the U.S. have in picking and choosing? And I think the logic runs contrary to conservative and libertarian usual logic. If I am to believe that guns and carrying guns and not registering guns will all be a deterrent to crime; wouldn't it also follow that if all nations had nukes, international rogue acts would be deterred? It's not my argument, I'm just sayin'.
Emphases are Bluester's but thanks for asking. On a related front, I encourage the viewing of the movie, "The Island". Cloning gone corporately wild. Great thought provoking stuff.
posted by bluester | 12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home