Of course, attacking another nation is an act of war, and no sane country would allow an attack, unprecendented or not, to go unanswered. But in cases when there had been no attack, Congress declared war, for that power lay with them alone. Yet, if that be the case, is the War in Iraq even legal?
Upon careful study we will notice that the only person to declare war was President Bush. And upon perusing of Article II of the US Constitution, we learn he has no constitutional authority to do that. If we were to stop our research there, the war in Iraq would be illegal. However, Congress did vote to sanction the entry of troops into Iraq and begin military action. What is that, if not an informal declaration of war?
Yet why would Congress resort to such a way of dealing with a rather touchy and legalistic matter? Frankly, I have no answer save that of cowardice. In this day and age there are many things that are admired – including pwer and money. Once someone has either, and especially both, they will do anything and everything to keep them. Congressmen happen to have both. And with that power and money comes the greed for more and the wish to hold on to their Congress seats no matter what. By not voting specifically on declaring war, they are not required to show their vote to their constitutents. And with a very large divide between the nation as a whole concerning positions on the war, it could very easily lose them their seat the next election. That is cowardice. That is being afraid to stand up for what is right based on material goods.
Regardless of whether the War in Iraq is right, it is legal. It is sanctioined, albeit informally, by Congress. And now, let us congratulate ourselves on electing cowards. Frailty, thy name is Congress.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Alessandra. Giving the President a “blank check” on the war in Iraq was a way to escape responsibility and pin everything on the President if things went wrong. And the Democrats have taken full advantage of this opening, since they’ve been busy trashing Bush over the war without ever owning up to their own role in starting it.
Another thing that concerns me: A declaration of war solidifies our committment. The options are either victory or defeat. Whereas the informal ‘permission slip’ to the President is not binding, and allows us to withdraw whenever we feel like it. Good article.
Let’s hope that this war will end in victory unlike the first war against Saddam (Desert Storm) which we abandonned because of lack of support; because the media pushed us out. Making this war neccesary, if we had finished the first we wouldn’t be there now!
Bob,
What on earth makes you think that if we had taken down Saddam with the first War we would not be there now. The mess we are in today is exactly what George H.W. Bush wanted to avoid. And he was right.
What do you mean? If we had taken out Saddam during “Desert Storm” we wouldn’t have had to remove him now.
and I beleive HW withdrew because of pressure from the media and public opinion. According to generals involved in the war we had nearly finished and were on the point of victory when we withdrew the troops.
We don’t really have a mess right now, contrary to popular beleif, We have lost less men in this war than any other in history, Iraq has adopted a constitution and is now close to running their own country…
Why must we be so negative about the war it is going well!
I agree with the basic thesis of this article, that Congress has avoided its duty, and acts like a pack of wimps. I disagree, however, that the war in Iraq is “legal.” The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war… there is difference in declaring war, and issuing the president a blank check to make war as he sees fit. With the blank check they gave President Bush, he could make war or not make war, as he saw fit, and under any conditions he liked. They in no way declared war in a constitutional manner, but “passed the buck,” so to speak, when it would have been just as easy to make a formal declaration of war (which Rep. Ron Paul wanted them to do). Instead, they abandoned their constitutional responsibility, and allowed the president to launch us into another quagmire that is looking more and more like Vietnam.
once again so negative… Iraq is NOT looking like Vietnam it is very successful!
Congress has not “declared” war since World War II, so this war is more legal than any since then.
Americans aren’t being killed at the same rate as they were in Vietnam, but who knows when that may change? Maybe you see the potential for us getting out of Iraq at some time in the future, but I don’t… unfortunately. I hope I’m wrong.
The argument that this war is more legal than any war since WW2 is nothing to boast of, even if it’s true. Congress has abdicated their constitutional responsibility from Korea to Iraq, and every war between. No doubt they will continue to do so in the future, allowing presidents to ship our soldiers to fight in unconstitutional wars at their own whims.
There is another very disturbing thing about this war. Remember in Vietnam, the US never lost a single battle, but we still lost the war. Why? Because the media, anti-war protesters, liberals, and traitors like John Kerry and Jane Fonda said all kinds of things against the war, and protested it like crazy, and under pressure from them, the US pulled out.
The problem is that in this war, the same thing is happening! The media, anti-war protesters, liberals, and traitors like Cindy Sheehan are saying all kinds of things against the war, and ar protesting it like crazy. I just hope we don’t loose this war too, even though we win every battle.
We lost Vietnam because the government wouldn’t turn the military loose to attack vulnerable, and critical enemy targets. I have documented evidence in books around the house, and firsthand evidence from my grandfather, who served in the air force during that war. I’m not sure if the government is curttailing the military in Iraq or not. If they are, it’s completely wrong, and only proves they don’t intend to win, just as in Vietnam.
I’m against the war, but please don’t lump me with liberals like Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. I won’t get into my reasoning now, but you can’t take away people’s right to protest government policy without completely destroying the foundational liberties of our country. Do that, and what good will winning the war be?
I don’t mind them protesting government policy, but I do mind some of the things that Cindy Sheehan has called the president. Examples: A terrorist, a lying b****, a murderous thug, a jerk, an evil maniac, etc. Even if the president were those things (which, of course, he isn’t), it’s treasonous behaviour. Oh, and she also calls terrorists who are killing American troops in Iraq “freedom fighters.”
I don’t excuse anything about Cindy Sheehan, but you cannot say that insulting the president is treasonous. This is America, not the Soviet Union. No government official is above criticism, even criticism that is in very poor taste. Her calling the terrorists “freedom fighters” is much worse, in my opinion, than anything she said about President Bush. That does smack of aiding the enemy, which is much closer to treason than insulting an elected official.
I don’t excuse anything about Cindy Sheehan, but you cannot say that insulting the president is treasonous. This is America, not the Soviet Union. No government official is above criticism, even criticism that is in very poor taste. Her calling the terrorists “freedom fighters” is much worse, in my opinion, than anything she said about President Bush. That does smack of aiding the enemy, which is much closer to treason than insulting an elected official.
I don’t excuse anything about Cindy Sheehan, but you cannot say that insulting the president is treasonous. This is America, not the Soviet Union. No government official is above criticism, even criticism that is in very poor taste. Her calling the terrorists “freedom fighters” is much worse, in my opinion, than anything she said about President Bush. That does smack of aiding the enemy, which is much closer to treason than insulting an elected official.
Well yes, calling them freedom fighters is simply treason. Insulting the president isn’t exactly treasonous…but it’s close. Even if the president were a liberal like Kerry, and not even worthy of being the local dog-catcher, he would still be the President of the United States. And publically calling him a terrorist, or a lying b*****, or an evil maniac, etc. would simply not be acceptable.
By the way, you posted your last comment three times.
Yeah, I know… the web site was messing up, and was showing the comment wasn’t posted. Then it finally posted, and there it was three times!
I agree that using such derogatory language is unacceptable for a public figure, though I wouldn’t call it treasonous. Everyone has the right to their opinion of a public figure, even if it does seem a little outrageous. However, if you want respect from anyone that matters, it’s important to use professional language. Calling names doesn’t impress anyone who’s using their brain.
SA: This war is not bad. The casualty reports here wouldn’t even warrant a press report in Vietnam. Watch (or read!) We Were Soldiers. Now that is bad (and we won there).
Regarding Sheehan: Just because something is legal does not make it right. Legally, I can use profanity. Morally, I should not. ;)
It might not be treasonous, but it’s close. Like you said, “If you want respect from anyone that matters, it’s important to use professional language. Calling names doesn’t impress anyone who’s using their brain.”
I believe I’ve already acknowledged that this war is not bad, compared to Vietnam, or just about any other war our country has taken part in. That, though, doesn’t make it morally justifiable, nor does it erase the pain of the 2,000+ families who have suffered the loss of loved ones. I have seen We Were Soldiers, btw. It’s a good movie. :) I hope it doesn’t get that bad in Iraq…
I won’t even address Sheehan again, since I have as little use for her as anyone else. ;)
But S.A., you aren’t saying we should pull out, are you? If we pulled out now, all those 2,000 soldiers would have died for nothing.
if you talk to the soldiers and especially the families of those who died. They (with few exceptions) do NOT want us to pull out of Iraq they want the victory…
Personally, I do think we should pull out, as anything we accomplish over there is likely to create as many enemies as friends. I would prefer us to return to the “friendship with all, alliance with none” policy of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. That is what this country was built on, and it’s what we should go back to. Like Washington said, whenever you ally yourself to one group against another group, you become enslaved to the group you are allied with, to some degree. That’s what’s happening in Iraq. We are getting enmeshed in a big mess that it is going to be more difficult to extricate ourselves from as time goes by.
btw, I don’t believe families of the soldiers who died should be directing policy, so I don’t put a lot of credence in that argument. Most military families (to my knowledge, anyway) support whatever the military is doing. I support the military, but not the government policy that sends the military where they don’t belong.
S.A., if we pull out now, the terrorists will come back into Iraq, and make it a totalitarian regime like Saddam had. All those 2,000 soldiers would have died for nothing, and it would be a big step toward loosing the war. Do you really think that’s a good thing to do?
It’s not our business what kind of government Iraq, or any other nation has. Unlike President Bush, I don’t believe our government, or any other, has a God-given right to export our system of government around the world.
The terrorists coming back into Iraq? It seems there are plenty of them there now. Besides, no solid evidence has been found linking Saddam Hussein with Al-qaida. He terrorized his own people, but that doesn’t give us a right to attack him. No one can go around removing every brutal dictator in the world, not even a nation as powerful as ours. Unfortunately, in every war a lot of people die for nothing. If this war convinced the government to return to an isolationist mindset, and allow other nations to solve their own problems, I would have to say that would be a good consequence (though I wish we could have learned it without losing all those lives). I don’t believe the war in Iraq is helping us defeat terrorism. Contrariwise, I believe it is creating more terrorists, by engendering more hate against the United States among Muslims.
It’s not our business what kind of government Iraq, or any other nation has. Unlike President Bush, I don’t believe our government, or any other, has a God-given right to export our system of government around the world.
The terrorists coming back into Iraq? It seems there are plenty of them there now. Besides, no solid evidence has been found linking Saddam Hussein with Al-qaida. He terrorized his own people, but that doesn’t give us a right to attack him. No one can go around removing every brutal dictator in the world, not even a nation as powerful as ours. Unfortunately, in every war a lot of people die for nothing. If this war convinced the government to return to an isolationist mindset, and allow other nations to solve their own problems, I would have to say that would be a good consequence (though I wish we could have learned it without losing all those lives). I don’t believe the war in Iraq is helping us defeat terrorism. Contrariwise, I believe it is creating more terrorists, by engendering more hate against the United States among Muslims.
Saddam being a cruel dictator wasn’t the main reason that we invaded Iraq, S.A.! It was because there was evidence that Saddam had WMD, which he would use against us. We had to take him out before that happened.
There are terrorists there now, but we are in control. If we pulled out, they would take control. Pulling out, to them, would be a sign of weakness, which they would take advantage of and attack us again.
Your last sentence is just plain false. I think you need to do a bit more research on that. The Muslim terrorists already hate America almost as much as they hate Israel! The call us the Great Satan, and they would do anything to destroy us. Remember 9/11? They attacked us because they wanted to kill as many of us as they could, because they already hated us as much as is possible. They can’t hate us any more than they already do.
There are many pictures of Iraqies holding signs like “Thank you Mr. Bush” and “We love you, USA”, and with them smiling next to American soldiers. There are also stories about them being happy that we came and took out Saddam. (Needless to say that the media never shows any of this; they want to make the war look bad.)
The problem is that we can’t just leave “other nations” (like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) to solve their own problems. They don’t think they have problems. All they care about is killing Americans, Israelies, and Christians. We must either win this war, by beating the Islamic terrorists so badly that they can’t or won’t fight any more, or we loose the war. There is no leaving and “allowing other nations to solve their own problems.” We’d all be dead or Muslim within 50 years if the government did that.
Boy was that long. I should extend it and turn it into an article. lol
The only way to destroy Muslim hatred of America and Israel is either to nuke the whole Middle East, or to pull out and leave the Middle East to solve its own problems. If we weren’t interfering in Islamic territory, they wouldn’t be attacking us. That’s the reason they think of us as “the great Satan.” They didn’t call us that a hundred years ago.
I reiterate that the longer we stay over there, the more people will come to hate us. No people enjoys being occupied by a foreign country, even if that country has provided some benefits along the way. That is one of the best proven facts of history. Only a policy of isolationism will protect us from an unending, unwinnable “war against terrorism.”
SA,
“I reiterate that the longer we stay over there, the more people will come to hate us.”
We have been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for over 50 years. They do not hate us. The nations that hate us now would hate us before.
As for the rest, I hope it is answered in my next comment.
War in Iraq – Right or Wrong?
Isaac MacMillen
The Role of Government in Defense
Government, according to Romans 13, has the duty to protect the people. The United States government bears that responsibility. When the President is sworn in, he takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Some would argue that, by invading Iraq, the President broke his oath. I would differ. Rather than breaking it, he upheld it. The Constitution was ordained and established, in part, to “provide for the common defense.” By taking necessary action, the President is not only upholding his oath, but ascribing to the very principles behind the Constitution.
Constitutionality of the “War”
The question remains, however; was the war in Iraq carried out in a Constitutional manner? It is the duty of Congress to declare war. Congress authorized the President to use military action if Iraq did not comply with the UN. That is about as close as you can get these days to a declaration of war. But was it close enough? That remains a subject for debate.
Reasons for War
Also being debated is whether or not it was actually necessary to invade Iraq. I mean, come on; can you honestly say that a nation thousands of miles away, under UN sanctions, with US military forces right next door, and held in disdain by the world community – can you honestly say that such a nation posed a threat great enough against the United States to justify committing nearly 400,000 troops for an invasion?
When a government with a history of using weapons of mass destruction on its own people allies itself with the world’s most powerful terrorist organization, you would be foolish to not be concerned. Especially when that government is a sworn enemy of the US.
The link to Al-Qaeda
That there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is probably one of the most blatant lies about Iraq parrotted by the mainstream media. Some examples that, if not outright proving the link, at least make it a serious possibility:
—Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who worked for Iraqi Intelligence, helped one of the 9/11 hijackers to enter Malaysai. He also attended what is believed to be the first 9/11 planning session, in January of 2000, with two of the hijackers. Shakir was arrested after 9/11, but left Jordan to go back to Iraq after pleading by the Iraqi government for his release.
—The Czech Republic (which joined us in OIF) alleges that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence personnel in Europe. Able Danger, the secret Pentagon unit that recently surfaced, confirms this claim, which was previously dismissed by the 9/11 commission (after talking with ZERO relevant wittnesses).
—In 1998, the Justice Department issued and indictment against Osama Bin Laden. Here is a portion of it:
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
—Captured Iraqi Intelligence Service documents inducate that Saddam’s men regarded Bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992.
—Saddam harbored for TEN YEARS one of the terrorists that carried out the 1993 WTC bombings.
—Iraqi Intelligence were sent to meet with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 – the year that bin Laden released his fatwa calling for the killing of all Americans.
—After being wounded in Afghanistan in 2001 by US forces, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi chose to move to Baghdad for surgery. (Al-Zarqawi is currently leading the insurgency in Iraq.)
(1)
That is a sampling of evidence of the Iraq-al-Qaeda link. That was certainly an
important part of the decision to invade Iraq. But I believe that a greater, longer-term strategy was also in the minds of the policy makers.
“Divide and Conquer.”
One way to put out a fire is to separate the burning logs. You end up ith the same number of logs that you started with; but, separated from each other, they cool off quickly and the fire ceases. Strategically, Iraq sits between Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran – all hotbeds of terror. By taking out Iraq, the United States has placed a serious obstacle in the path of organized terrorism. Sure, the terrorists can still travel from one nation to the next; but now they are on unfriendly territory. In addition, introducing democracy in the heart of the Middle East will have a positive effect. Of course, we cannot expect them to look like us, but some democracy is better than none. When we finally do leave Iraq, we will have planted a spreading plant in fertile soil. But first we must make sure that the plant can defend itself.
Conclusion
Did we really have to invade Iraq now? Could we have waited? Sure, we could have! But imagine how history would have changed if we had assassinated Hitler in 1933. Or if the CIA had been allowed to assassinate Osama in the ‘90s. Why wait, when waiting will only make the problem grow worse? I do not necessarily agree with how the war was planned, carried out, or is going now, but I do support the invasion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda has lost millions of dollars, WMD plans, and a a significant base of operations. Freedom is not free. But it is worth the cost.
(1) Examples adapted from http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
*****
Debate, discuss, challenge, etc.
Thanks SecDef!
I just wrote out this response, before SecDef posted his. So I might be repeating something he just said.
S.A., if we did leave the Middle East like you say we should—leave Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. and never come back, and let them “solve their own problems”—you know what would happen? The Muslim terrorists and the terror-supporting states would completely obliterate Israel. Is that acceptable to you? By the way, Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews will never be destroyed. It’s too much a part of their religion. America pulling out is the one thing that will not help the situation.
You are making a huge assumption by taking the isolationism viewpoint. You are assuming that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. They won’t. They call this country the “Great Satan,” and they have publicly claimed that they want to kill millions of Americans.
If we had not gone into Kuwait, Saddam would have taken it over, then probably taken over Saudi Arabia. He then would have had control of just about all the oil in the Middle East, and he would have had nuclear weapons. With those nukes, he would obliterate Israel, and who knows what else. Is that acceptable to you?
If we pull out of Iraq now, it would be a huge sign of weakness (to the terrorists), and they would attack us again. And again. And again and again and again like they have done for many years.
Obviously you’re not paying any attention to anything I say, so there’s not much point in continuing the argument. It should be obvious that the reason Muslims hate us and consider us “the great Satan” is because of our policy in the Middle East. If we hadn’t been interfering there since the 1940s, they wouldn’t give us a thought one way or the other. That’s just the plain and simple fact. They don’t hate us because we’re free, they hate us because of what we’ve done over there.
What happens in the Middle East, whether the nation is Iraq or Israel, is no concern of ours. I don’t care what happens over there. I don’t have any religious interest vested in the atheistic/socialistic state of Israel. If we mind our own business, we will create fewer enemies, and if we maintain a strong military, it is doubtful anyone will be wanting to pick a fight with us (which Saddam did not do, regardless of what anyone says).
I now withdraw from the argument for the time being, and wait for Mr. Wallace’s next article on the Iraq war, which I am sure will be extremely enlightening. :)
So basically, you don’t give a darn about the survival of Israel, and you refuse to believe the fact that Muslims hate America, whatever our policy on the Middle East is. And you rudely (and illogically) say that I don’t pay attention to anything you write. I couldn’t be debating you if I didn’t pay attention to what you write.
It isn’t any concern of ours, until they nuke us, S.A. Once they develop nuclear weapons, the will attack us with them. We have to stop them from developing those nukes. That is most of the reason we invaded Iraq: To get rid of Saddam’s WMD.
If we just left the terrorists alone, and we had never gone over there at all, or paid any attention to anything they did, we’d have been nuked by now.
SA, I respect your position, but you must realize that you are wrong about Islam. Islam seeks to take over the entire world. We must either fight now or later.
Just out of curiosity, where were all these angry Muslims and hate-filled terrorists in the 18th and 19th centuries? I don’t remember them being too much of a problem for America then.
We weren’t exactly a major power to be reckonned with back then…
But “Christian” nations and muslim nations have been at war since Rome fell. They hate us because we are identified as a “Christian” nation and because we ally ourselves with the Jews.
well, for one thing, the world didn’t have much technology in the 18th and 19th centuries…I leave you to figure the implications of that for yourselves. I think the riots in France should be sufficient evidence that the Muslims are not going to stay in the Middle East and solve their own problems. It is true that Middle Easterners hate us partly because of our presence in places like Saudi Arabia, but it does not follow that their hate will go away if we leave. It is part of their religion. But we’re only a bunch of high schoolers (or college students), so it would help if we relied on something other than our own personal opinions to navigate this sticky issue. We could also do ourselves a favor by critically examining the basis for our opinions.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, Islamic jihad was kind of asleep. Oil hadn’t been discovered in the Middle East, so there was no money to go after. They had been beaten back, but they’ve come back again now.
This quote from Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds in the November/December issue of “Foreign Affairs says it all:
“The current war in Iraq will generate a ferocious blowback of its own, which-as a recent classified CIA assessment predicts-could be longer and more powerful than that from Afghanistan. Foreign volunteers fighting U.S. troops in Iraq today will find new targets around the world after the war ends. Yet the Bush administration, consumed with managing countless crises in Iraq, has devoted little time to preparing for such long-term consequences.
“President George W. Bush and others have suggested that it is better for the United States to fight the terrorists in Baghdad than in Boston. It is a comforting thought, but wrong on two counts. First, it posits a finite number of terrorists who can be lured to one place and killed. But the Iraq war has expanded the terrorists’ ranks: the year 2003 saw the highest incidence of significant terrorist attacks in two decades, and then, in 2004, astonishingly, the number tripled! Second, the Bush administration has not addressed the question of what the foreign fighters will do when the war in Iraq ends. It would be naive to expect them to return to civilian life in their home countries. More likely, they will become the new shock troops of the international jihadist movement.”
The problem with that is…you are assuming there is a direct relationship between the US presence in Iraq and terrorist attacks. That may be true. But you must also acknowledge that it is possible that terrorism is rising, and that maybe there would have been more terrorist attacks if we had not been in Iraq.
Terrorism could be likened to a wasp nest. Leave them alone, and they leave you alone….until you realize it is too late. Go after them, and the number of stings will skyrocket….for a season. But you also won’t have to deal with them again. :)
Is there any way you can prove that last statement… that if you accept the number of stings we’re taking now, that we won’t have to deal with terrorism in the future?
Nope. We cannot prove it. In fact, it probably won’t happen, since we know that things get worse and worse until Christ’s return. However, that does not excuse us from doing what we know to be right. So, in the example I was using…if you perservere, then you will destroy the nest and be able to stop the wasps. Then, you won’t have to deal with the huge nest in the future. :)
Another quote that substantiates my position, coming from an officer on the ground in Iraq, Marine Colonel Stephen W. Davis, the top Marine commander in Iraq’s Western Anbar Province: “I don’t talk in terms of winning. Americans like finality… That is not the reality in the Middle East. This is like a never-ending rugby game.”
So, I contend that we should be looking for an immediate exit strategy, instead of sacrificing American lives in a never-ending struggle that will accomplish virtually nothing.
S.A., it’s a never-ending struggle, like you just said. There’s no way out of it. If we leave them alone, they will attack us, and attack us, and attack us, until we fight back. If we don’t fight back, we’re screwed. There is no exit strategy.
There is an exit strategy, and that is to leave the Middle East altogether, and let them solve their own problems. It is our presence in the Middle East that has inflamed the wrath of our enemies. They view us as an occupying force, rightly or wrongly, and no one likes to have an occupying force on territory they view as their own. Isolationist policy would, I am convinced, solve many of our problems. But obviously, our government isn’t concerned about keeping terrorists off of our soil. If they were, they wouldn’t be letting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants stream in from Mexico. Anyone who thinks no terrorists are taking advantage of this open wound is more naive than I can imagine.
Never-ending war… Just like in “1984.” George Orwell was something akin to a prophet, in my opinion. (Couldn’t help bringing that up, I’m reading that for the second time, this time for a college class).
You missed part of what I said. If we leave them alone, they will attack us again and again and again. Our presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with it. If we pulled out and “left them to solve their own problems,” they would hate and attack us even more because it would be such a huge sign of weakness to them.
You missed part of what I said. If we leave them alone, they will attack us again and again and again. Our presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with it.
This is simply not true. What has Bin Laden said?
“We have declared jihad against the U.S., because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.”
“The U.S. today has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rules us . . . and wants us to agree to all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say, ‘You are terrorists.’”
“I address to the mothers of the American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land . . . I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over a billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government’s policy.”
If we pulled out and “left them to solve their own problems,” they would hate and attack us even more because it would be such a huge sign of weakness to them.
I guess Bush and the war hawks should have thought about that BEFORE we invaded Iraq and got us even deeper into what you yourself admit is a “never ending struggle.”
If it’s a ‘never-ending struggle’, how could you possibly get any deeper into it than that? Wouldn’t every course of action have the exact same result?
Something else I feel compelled to ask is this: why are you taking the words of a murder (Bin Laden) as grounds for your arguement? Is that not slightly lopsided? Have you forgotten that this man thanked God for the horror of 9/11?
Admittedly, there are problems with how the war was begun, handled, and is being handled. And yes, we have failed to control our borders and that needs to be cracked down on NOW. But this war is not going to end for a long, long time, and nothing will change that – both sides of the discussion freely admit that. So now you must ask, where do you want to fight it? Here or over there?
What’s wrong with quoting bin Laden? He is the “head” of the terrorist movement, so isn’t it logical to assume that he would know better than anyone what they are fighting for? Just because he is an evil man doesn’t mean that you can or should ignore everything he says. The world of politics is full of evil men and women. I wish we could ignore everything they said, but unfortunately, we can’t.
I still insist that withdrawing from Middle East affairs would diminish hatred for us, and diminish our trouble with terrorists. Unless I am sorely mistaken, there are many terrorists in Iraq now who would not have joined that movement if it were not for our invasion. At the very least, you certainly cannot prove that we would still be in constant danger of terrorist attack, even if we adopted an isolationist stance, although you continue to state it as a fact.
S.A. The very fact that he is the “head of the terrorist movement” is exactly why we’re not jumping to believe his quotes. It has always been traditional to believe your side over the enemy, but I’m afraid we’re tending to forget that in this war.
Think back to the Gitmo Koran story – who was everyone believing? Terrorists who had been specifically trained to make such allegations. We shouldn’t have found it so surprising that they turned out to be false.
S.A., You were the first to say this was a never ending struggle – and I therefore reiterate my question: if it’s a never ending struggle, why would anything we do make a difference? The fight will continue. I too am more in favor of an isolationist policy, but not because I think it will solve all our problems with terrorists. We’ve had attacks on our soil years before we began this war on terrorism, so basically, I think we can say they (the terrorists) shot first.
So the terrorists definitely shouldn’t believe President Bush when he says that we won’t quit until we’ve eradicated terrorism, or anything else he says, so they should keep on fighting. Come on, you have to make sound judgments about what your enemies say and what they do, and there is no evidence at all that al Qaida is seeking a world take-over. I see no reason to disbelieve their goal is to drive the Americans from the Middle East, no matter how reprehensible their methods are. Personally, I don’t find President Bush a lot more trustworthy than bin Laden. Bush hasn’t shown himself to be above lying.
When I spoke of a “never-ending struggle,” I was referring to the 1984 depiction by George Orwell, in which The Party used never-ending war to keep the minds of the people in bondage. I’m afraid that could happen here, because centralization of government always advances most rapidly during war-time. That is just another reason why we should do what we can to end the war, regardless of who fired the first shot (incidentally, the Muslims would probably say we fired the first shot by providing Israel with the means to drive the Palestinians out, and establish their home land there).