This is the question that the leadership on the left has failed to answer. If you don't think we should have gone into Iraq to begin with that has nothing to do with what's going on now. We're there and that's the reality we're dealing with. We know that as a direct result of our surrender in Vietnam we got the Iranian hostage crisis, and of course genocide in Cambodia. Indirectly we got the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the infamous "Black Hawk Down" Tragedy in Somalia. My thinking is that the lack of response to the first trade center bombing and the surrender in Somalia led to 9/11. (i'm not looking for argument, that's my "emboldenment" theory)
However we know there must be some kind of negative consequence of our surrender (if we do) in Iraq, so what will it be? Hillary? Murtha? Kerry? what will it be?
I read this interview today by Hugh Hewitt, he interviewed Christopher Hitchens who was a hero on the left until he (sort of) switched teams, meaning that he decided that the fascist muslims were a little worse than the U.S. so they don't like him as much anymore. Either way, he answered the question and i think it's an eye opening interview.
HH: So you believe the holocaust that would follow in Iraq from a precipitous American withdrawal would rival, or perhaps even exceed that of Pol Pot in Cambodia?
CH: It would be a very rash person who didn’t think that that worst case would be the actual one. And look, again, the awful thing is some of it’s happening as we speak. I mean, almost anyone in Baghdad now, at any rate, who has a qualification, or any money, or any education, or any resources of any sort, is already gone. Perhaps as many as a million and a half, we don’t actually know, have moved to Jordan, some of them to Syrian, some even to Iran, anywhere to get out. Life is becoming intolerable there.
Continued
5 comments:
The hostage crisis in Iran was the result of our overthrowing a democratic government in Iran and installing a ruthless dictator. Cambodia was a result of our widening the Vietnam War, a mistake, into Cambodia. Vietnam ended the Pol Pot regime.
I agree with some of Hitchen's comments:
"The American enterprise in Indochina was, I think, foredoomed by one thing, namely its direct inheritance from French colonialism in that region."
"there was never any chance of keeping Vietnam partitioned, and it shouldn’t have been tried."
Thanks Gary.... ummm anyone else want to take a stab at it? No? just like the last post the left can't defend themselves on the issues.
Rhino I haven't been home- Its not to avoid responding on my part.
I really dont want to fight with this aspect because I have some mixed feelings about this and I agree that while some Democrats might be looking at it- as he states- not enough attention is being paid to the possibilities. Thats true.
This is a main reason why I have said "phased withdrawal" as opposed to "out now ASAP". Because its not so simple. I dont know what would happen if we did that.
The fact is we are there now, its true that we can debate IF we should have gone there but its also true that we have to deal in the present.I get that.
On one hand, I think these concerns have validity and that would be a tragic disastrous outcome. On the other, numerically, the violence has only been exacerbated as we remain there which is something "out now" proponents are saying. That we are escalating it. I'm not sure how much I buy that as a single contributing variable though.
I think they must take over their own security, and so I think the answer is to leave in increments. Make it clear that they have to take over. We cannot have a perpetual presence.
I know you think we hippies root for defeat, but I think most of us do want to see stability. I think we do want a reprieve from chaos long enough to really get things organized on the ground, get control.
I hope this investment of troops pays off and they CAN get it together, for everyone's sake.
I dont think people want to see genocide just to be "right". I would hope not.
Lily, i hope nobody "wants" to see genocide just to be right, but i do think that most of them don't care if it occurs if it means they are right and can increase their own position.
while i understand the "phased withdrawal" idea, i think it's foolish. There should be NO withdrawal until the country is stabalized. The fact is that we will either finish the job and then leave, or we will leave and be forced to return to an even bigger shit storm later. The country and the region in general are too important to let it slide into complete chaos.
We need to take the politics and the aclu lawyers out of the picture and just let our soldiers do thier job, we also need these pussy's in congress to shut the hell up. If they really wanted to do something they wouldn't have come out with a "non binding" resolution! they just wanted to score political points with that bullshit and they accomplished that, but they also undermined our troops, our president, and our mission at the same time. It emboldens our enemy and encourages them to hold out in the face of defeat after defeat because they KNOW we're eventually going to pussy out!
Rhino just wanted to let you know I did read your response, but just dont want to argue about this today.
Its nothing personal and beleive it or not I do see where you are coming from with this even though I dont agree. I just dont want to talk about it.
Post a Comment