succinct pro-war argument

This is a very old post from the old "thinktam" site, quoting something from one of the Iraqi blogs. I reproduce it here because I find that while I can express things logically, things sound heaps better if someone else's words are used to express the exact same idea.

Point of complaint raised against Bush and answered by someone else (Caroline). The answer is so sublime I can't imagine how anyone can possibly not be a Bush fan after reading the answer. Can you?

He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) have obviously not worked out the way he imagined -- naked torture was not the goal. But the far greater problem for the future is that our proud commander has revealed the hollowness behind the unilateral superpower. From the top down, we have not been able to win Iraq, much less the world. And going into Iraq has compromised or crippled the war on terror he declared himself.

The Dems are diminishing the military through propoganda like Michael Moore's that portrays pre-invasion Iraq as some peaceful idyll and our military as dupes of some crazed imperial power, fighting an immoral war. This is the only respect in which Iraq resembles Vietnam - the left has made it so. There were at least half a dozen excellent reasons to go into Iraq - the supposed WMD's (which all educated parties assumed) combined with the fact that Saddam did not yet have an effective nuclear capacity, the fact that we were technically still at war with Saddam due to his failure to comply with his ceasefire agreement after Gulf1, the fact that he ignored 17 UN resolutions re WMD inspections and was making a mockery of the UN and thereby setting a precedent for other rogue regimes (exhibit 2 - Sudan) , the devastating effects of the sanctions which were penalizing the Iraqi citizens but could not be lifted due to Saddam's ambitions, assorted evidence that Saddam was friendly to Anti-US causes such as al-Quaeda, the neo-con idea that since Iraq was a largely secular society of highly educated and competent people it could be a germ for spreading democracy in the middle East, thereby making the rest of the world eventually safer by getting at the roots of terrorism, and last but not least - in fact at the top of the list for any humanist - and I had thought that American democrats were humanists - the fact that Saddam was one of the most brutal murderous dictators in human history - holding a country of 25 million people hostage to terror. It is entirely sound foreign policy - from both a practical and moral standpoint - to use military force precisely when so many relevant factors converge. Instead of appreciating this the Dems are quite willing to throw in the towel because we face a more vicious enemy than we imagined - an enemy willing to shield themselves behind civilians, willing to blow up infrastructure, willing to use mosques and schools as ammo dumps, willing to indiscriminately blow up hundreds upon hundreds of innocent civilians just to derail what they call an "occupation" but which as any idiot can see is a temporary attempt to maintain some semblance of order in the lead up to free elections so we can get the hell out of there. Might we lose? Hell yeah - and it will be in no small measure due to the help of the Democrats in America who have driven me - a lifelong Democrat into the Bush camp. I hope to God Bush wins reelection in November and defeats my stupid immoral fellow Americans who are willing to sacrifice ordinary Iraqis for their political ambitions.

P.S. Also see this other list of arguments from Ann Coulter.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?