Juan-- I love you too! But I must point out several things:
Quote:
|
1. The saudis are not "rational." They sit on the fence and commit to... nothing. They are our "allies" (though 10 or the 11 9/11 hijackers were Saudi), but they support the jihad movement as well.
|
-- They are rational. That is why they walk both lines. They are trying to figure out who is going to come out on top, and take that side. Their main goal -- who will provide the ruling family (and its associates) the most $$$$ in the long run.
Quote:
|
2. Japan and Germany had one thing, well a couple of things, the current jihadist movement does not have: Armies, money, organization. To compare the current jihadist movement to the Japanese and German armies of WWII gives the word "reaching" a new meaning. The jihads do not have the means to invade or "take over" ANYONE!
|
The Islamic movement does have an army. Specifically, islamic jihad is "Army of God". I beg to differ in this one. They are more organized than we give them credit for: sleeper cells, money laundering and distribution systems that rival that of the MAFIA
. They are pros at this. They have indirect means of doing so which makes them more dangerous than any army simply because they can't be seen.....
Quote:
|
3. Show me ONE ounce of evidence that states that they are "about to" or "close to" being able to deliver a small nuclear, or biological weapon. This takes TONS of money (of which they have very little), and even more knowledge. Even if they DID somehow, against all odds, develop a weapon, they'd need a delivery system -- missile of some sort. Ask Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, all of whom have tried or are currently trying -- WITH money and knowledge, by the way -- to develope a nuclear and/or biological weapon.
|
Yes, they don't have their own weapons program. However, you do recall the "Sum of All Fears" scenario? Weapon = suitcase/dirty bomb. Delivery system = Ryder truck/Ford Festiva/BMW X5/moped/back pack/etc. The Soviet Union is very specifically non-specific about several supposed prototype suitcase bombs that may or may not be AWOL if they were or were not actually created (and possibly or not possibly sold to the highest bidder after the fall).
Quote:
|
4. Yes, Hussein is/was a bastard bully who has killed thousands. Since when, though, did we become the World's police? If that's the argument we are going to use, then we must go after Iran, Syria -- hell, most of the middle east, North Korea, half of South America... I can go on. Mr. Kraft talks about how this is "Not TV." Well, that means that a GREAT majority of the countries in this world are run by a dictator, a crook, a family of shieks, or all of the above! Stating that getting rid of Hussein was a necessity is a convenient excuse. If that is our reasoning, let's keep going then until we get rid of EVERY madman running a country.
|
i think that's a great idea. but it will take time.
Quote:
|
5. Define "good shot" at making Iraq a democracy. How is that measured when, on the eve of the "historical" vote, we (yes, we -- see below) have to shut down the borders, impose a curfew, and prohibit traveling? Mr. Kraft pretends to know history, but he conveniently forgets to mention how them "Brits" tried (earlier this century) exactly what WE are doing now; they failed. Why? This is not, never has been, and never will be, a "democratic" society. Not democracy as we know it. The MINUTE we leave, some other Hussein will take over. This time, with new roads and cell phones.
|
Well, we can insure the success of democracy with the introduction of Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Be Be and many car dealerships to replace the camels.
No, you point is well taken. The people must WANT (ie desire) to be free. But hey, if they don't, wouldn't it be better that they weren't, but under our 'guidance' anyway?
Quote:
|
6. It was never our "intention to govern and provide security" in Iraq? Well, that's what you had better intend to do when INVADE a country.
|
I think that was in reference to a long term situation (or plan); but of course, we only have 50 (er 1?) states (depends on the economic plans of Puerto Rico and whether or not they are getting enough federal aid this week whether or not they want to join).... It would be nice to add Cuba (although the welfare cost would be staggering) as well as France to the list of states. hell, we could have annexed Canada a long time ago (but we would have to deport Celine, eh?)...
Quote:
|
I am not a "softie." I am not some radical, left-wing, pacifist. I believe in a strong military (served in ours and was in the first Gulf War).
|
I know, and I thank you for your sacrifice(s).
Quote:
|
I also believe that we do not attack. We defend ourselves. We are better than that. We should have (and, obviously did) attack Afghanistan. We took action to defend ourselves. America does not, should not, invade -- unless attacked. Hussein, for ALL the fucked up things he did (and he did TONS), never attacked us. Not ONE crappy piece of paper has been found to prove that he had ANY contact with the current jihadi movement or a weapon of mass destruction.
|
I know. He was the EXAMPLE. He was the Guadacanal. He was the first warmup swing of the 'Big Stick' to announce that we will not be ignored.
Thats not military. That's trucker. See what you get for spending all that time in SC? :p