From Clinton and KKK Byrd:
That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle.
What happens when we leave? Dems pretend they are all for the "war on terrorism" but they show that they don't understand what the war on terror is by wanting to run away in Iraq.
Dems want to say how bad it is in Iraq....so that means it will get better if we leave?
The war on terror takes place in the middle east....and the Dems want us to leave.
They don't understand this issue, go back to pandering to illegal immigrants, gays and blacks.
link
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
This is not our fight
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I don't think the Democrats have thought through the implications of what they are saying.
Suppose Iraq is hopeless. Why would that be the case? Since regime change worked in Italy, Japan, and Germany, it implies this: Islam is beyond reform.
If this is true, the left, if it wished to remain logically coherent, would sadly need to revise much of their principles about human rights, pluralism, democracy and diplomacy. Leaving Iraq would show we think human rights are not appropriate for everyone, we can't have diplomacy with people who don't act in an honest democratic fashion, we can't expect to have a pluralist society with Muslims -- I'm curious how they square these implications with the rest of the leftist philosophy, which until now, at least had the merit of having good intentions and a universal concern for our fellow man.
"If this is true, the left, if it wished to remain logically coherent, would sadly need to revise..."
If only neocons were as good as "revising" their own failed policies to reflect the realities of today, as they are at trying to tell their betters what to do.....
No, al-Qaeda, as an organized terror wing no longer exists, and Iran is out of the picture entirely (as are Syria, Lebanon, and all the usual scapegoats).
The Iraqis had a tribal system of government that happened to suit them, and, like it or not, that "monstrous dictator" that everyone was in such a hurry to hang pretty much kept things together.
For some peoples, there can be no "democracy".
Would that we were only still a valid example of one, in our own country....
Why would that be the case? Since regime change worked in Italy, Japan, and Germany, it implies this: Islam is beyond reform.
Neither Japan, Italy, nor Germany were composite nations with three religious ethnic groups at each other's throats, so these really aren't great examples.
You can't create democracy in an unstable state, but that's just what Iraq was and is.
When did you become such an ignorant ideologue, Jason? You started out on such good terms. I guess the pull of conservative ideology was just too much for you to resist.
chet--
First of all, I'm glad to call myself an ideologue. If you're implying that I have standards, principles etc and others do not, I'm guilty as charged.
Speaking of ideas, you're not facing up to the implications of what you are saying.
For example, if Muslims can't even behave with Muslims of other sects, what makes you think you can have diplomacy with them? If Muslims can't behave with other Muslims, why do you want them in a multicultural society? etc. etc.
Post a Comment