My Best Guess
The longer the angst can build, the worse the perceived outcome of a conflict will be. The bottom line is this: We are going to go into Iraq, and it will be over and done with in weeks. We are not going alone, we don't need France or Germany, (the rest of Europe is with us) and we can't sit and wait for something like 9/11 or worse to happen. After 9/11, mostly those leaning to the left, were saying that the government knew "something" and heard this esoteric chatter, and THEREFORE should have been able to prevent the attacks of 9/11. It is the same crowd that now wants us to wait for a "smoking gun" before we are justified in using force in Iraq.
Suppose that tomorrow there is a terrible biological or chemical attack in the US and it is traced to Iraq as the maker of the toxic agent. What would we and media and everybody else be saying? You know as well as I do that we would all be screaming for the evidence of "what we knew and when we knew it" and we would be amazed at the stack of stuff that we have accumulated over last 13 years. Who in America on 9/12 would have said that we should "use more inspectors and let diplomacy work, and wait for the French to come around" if we had evidence that Iraq had been responsible? NOBODY! In fact, we would all say that we should have preemptively taken out any sorry 3rd world despot that thought that he could F$#% with the USA.
Listen, the people of Iraq are ready to get rid of the guy, and will be surrendering to reporters again. You have to be motivated and dedicated to do "urban warfare/house to house fighting" and such. People don't behave like that to defend an evil dictator.
After the war is over, and a democratic system of some sort is set up over there, we have the benefit of a stable, democratic partner in the area. When the younger generations in Iran see that America didn't come to Iraq to destroy Islam or occupy the country, but to liberate the people and establish stability, they will be motivated to continue the move to overthrow the Mullahs and islamic law that they are so tired of. The democratic movement in Iran is growing in strength and popularity and could use some support just across the border with a democratic nation. The domino effect of democracy in that region would have a stablizing effect that we can't even imagine. Our whole lives and economies have been based on instability in that region, imagine a stable gulf region.
If this war was about oil, we'd drill in ANWR (alaska national wildlife refuge), and take over Venezuela, not Iraq.
As far as mar's concern that we are subverting the democratic process, we are not. Our elected officials know that over 70% of the public supports using force in Iraq, and they will go along with Bush. If it was 0%, the congress would immediately, unanimously approve a bill that cut all FUNDING for the operation. The president commands the military, congress pays the bill. Built in check and balance as the framers of the constitution intended. By the way, they already passed resolution after 9/11 authorizing force as the PRESIDENT see's fit to protect the US from terrorist threat WITHOUT further approval from congress, as if he needs it anyway according to the constitution.
I suggest flying high, flying fast, dropping JDAM, and getting the job done now.
BobbyB
FLY MARINES!
The longer the angst can build, the worse the perceived outcome of a conflict will be. The bottom line is this: We are going to go into Iraq, and it will be over and done with in weeks. We are not going alone, we don't need France or Germany, (the rest of Europe is with us) and we can't sit and wait for something like 9/11 or worse to happen. After 9/11, mostly those leaning to the left, were saying that the government knew "something" and heard this esoteric chatter, and THEREFORE should have been able to prevent the attacks of 9/11. It is the same crowd that now wants us to wait for a "smoking gun" before we are justified in using force in Iraq.
Suppose that tomorrow there is a terrible biological or chemical attack in the US and it is traced to Iraq as the maker of the toxic agent. What would we and media and everybody else be saying? You know as well as I do that we would all be screaming for the evidence of "what we knew and when we knew it" and we would be amazed at the stack of stuff that we have accumulated over last 13 years. Who in America on 9/12 would have said that we should "use more inspectors and let diplomacy work, and wait for the French to come around" if we had evidence that Iraq had been responsible? NOBODY! In fact, we would all say that we should have preemptively taken out any sorry 3rd world despot that thought that he could F$#% with the USA.
Listen, the people of Iraq are ready to get rid of the guy, and will be surrendering to reporters again. You have to be motivated and dedicated to do "urban warfare/house to house fighting" and such. People don't behave like that to defend an evil dictator.
After the war is over, and a democratic system of some sort is set up over there, we have the benefit of a stable, democratic partner in the area. When the younger generations in Iran see that America didn't come to Iraq to destroy Islam or occupy the country, but to liberate the people and establish stability, they will be motivated to continue the move to overthrow the Mullahs and islamic law that they are so tired of. The democratic movement in Iran is growing in strength and popularity and could use some support just across the border with a democratic nation. The domino effect of democracy in that region would have a stablizing effect that we can't even imagine. Our whole lives and economies have been based on instability in that region, imagine a stable gulf region.
If this war was about oil, we'd drill in ANWR (alaska national wildlife refuge), and take over Venezuela, not Iraq.
As far as mar's concern that we are subverting the democratic process, we are not. Our elected officials know that over 70% of the public supports using force in Iraq, and they will go along with Bush. If it was 0%, the congress would immediately, unanimously approve a bill that cut all FUNDING for the operation. The president commands the military, congress pays the bill. Built in check and balance as the framers of the constitution intended. By the way, they already passed resolution after 9/11 authorizing force as the PRESIDENT see's fit to protect the US from terrorist threat WITHOUT further approval from congress, as if he needs it anyway according to the constitution.
I suggest flying high, flying fast, dropping JDAM, and getting the job done now.
BobbyB
FLY MARINES!
