A Short Must Read for Serious Politicos

[Hap]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_ideologue.html

What think you of Pat's premise?

hap

[kamilyun]

This line is the scary truth:

"But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them."

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

No one with any sense said that terrorists feared free societies. The Islamists for example hate free societies, but they know that a free society makes it easy for them to operate, so they do not fear the free societies. They will never fear free socieities until the free socieities grow enough spine and testicle to quit whimpering and whining, and get off their tulips to go kill the terrorists, and then have the good sense to actually stick to the job until it is finished. The problem is, for the most part, free socieities cater to the whims of their least common denominators.

Oh, and Pat is an idiot. The one thing the terrorists DO fear is the spread of a free society to THEIR breeding ground. It severely limits their prospects for conversion. Yes, any free society will always have its problems with those who would be terrorists, because that is the nature of humans, some succumb to it. Those who would be terrorists are not actually part of a free society, they just infest it. Saying that radical fundamentalists of any ilk are actually a part of a free society is like saying a tick with Lyme disease is part of its host. It is not part of the host, but merely a parasite bent on survival by destroying its host.

[Hap]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No one with any sense said that terrorists feared free societies.

Our President's words: "What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices."

Regards,

hap

[rabbidrabbit]

and this is inconsistent with what Virgil said how?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The one thing the terrorists DO fear is the spread of a free society to THEIR breeding ground.  

I think he covered it.

[oboe]

Within three posts, Mr. Buchanan was called an idiot.   I think that reveals both the likelihood of serious political discussion about your topic and the immaturity of some of the posters on this board.

We hadn't even gotten to Buchanan's premise, which I believe is addressed here:

But if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law?

I think the answer to that question is what Buchanan was referring to in the title of his piece, "Bush's Errant Ideology".    And it seems to me he had already answered the question:

In the free elections Bush demanded in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, the winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and Shia militants with ties to Iran.

FWIW I agree with Buchanan.

[Sandman]

"They were over here because we are over there."

Winner!

"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?"

Damn straight.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Sandman
[B
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?"

Damn straight. [/B]

they did, saddam killed them.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by john9001
they did, saddam killed them.

No one said that earning freedom for yourself is easy or cheap.  Based on the war we are in now, these guys had the ability to put up an insurgent war capable of keeping a poorly equiped army like Saddam's more than busy.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by oboe
Within three posts, Mr. Buchanan was called an idiot.   I think that reveals both the likelihood of serious political discussion about your topic and the immaturity of some of the posters on this board.

We hadn't even gotten to Buchanan's premise, which I believe is addressed here:
I think the answer to that question is what Buchanan was referring to in the title of his piece, "Bush's Errant Ideology".    And it seems to me he had already answered the question:

FWIW I agree with Buchanan.

I'm not the first person on this board to call "Mr" Buchanan an idiot, just one of the first moderate conservatives to do it. The only time the left DOESN'T call him an idiot is when he manages to wander around into promoting a theory they agree with, and especially if it is an anti Bush theory. And since you want to make the comment, I'll reply in kind. Your opinion of my level of maturity is almost as meaningless as Pat Buchanan's opinion on most things to most people. Have a nice day.

[Hap]

Oboe, I think you are correct to highlight those points.  Our assumption is that given a choice folks will choose democracy, our variant of it, and become our allies to some degree.

Certainly this has happened before.  What I doesn't pop to mind immediately is if it has occured when those in question value what are eternal verities, to them, much more than temporal ones.

Based on Iraq's past, the only displayed remedy is greater and harsher violence.  Under Saddam, Iraq was a secular nation.  It was not like Iran.

The secular despot is dead.  Bit of a vacuum has sucked the dregs of Islam into it.

All the Best,

hap

[oboe]

Japan and Germany are often held up as examples of successful regime-change and nation building.    But Natan Sharansky, the author who Bush admits has been a strong influence on his foreign policy ideas, said that an important reason Japan and Germany were able to switch to democracy was that we had utterly destroyed their societies.    We also had many more troops during the occupation phase and had a permanent military presence.

I don't think we've utterly destroyed Iraqi society - in fact pains were probably taken to keep it intact, given that we believed Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and open arms.    And we sure don't have the same troop strength there that we had in Japan and Germany after WWII.    I do believe we are over there more or less permanently, though, given the way things have developed.

Sure looks like a disaster.    I hope General Petraeus can put things on track.

[john9001]

in the news today, 250 insurgents and their leader were killed by Iraq govt troops supported by US troops.  Yes, things are going bad in Iraq, but for who?

also, in the south, British troops uncovered a huge arms catch.

[Hap]

Originally posted by oboe
Japan and Germany are often held up as examples of successful regime-change and nation building.    But Natan Sharansky, the author who Bush admits has been a strong influence on his foreign policy ideas, said that an important reason Japan and Germany were able to switch to democracy was that we had utterly destroyed their societies.    We also had many more troops during the occupation phase and had a permanent military presence.

I don't think we've utterly destroyed Iraqi society - in fact pains were probably taken to keep it intact, given that we believed Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and open arms.    And we sure don't have the same troop strength there that we had in Japan and Germany after WWII.    I do believe we are over there more or less permanently, though, given the way things have developed.

Sure looks like a disaster.    I hope General Petraeus can put things on track.

In order to achieve the ends you described Oboe, a la Germany and Japan, I can think of no other remedy than the one followed in WW2.

I do not think for a moment that the American people have the stomach or will to do it.  Unless, and this is just plain awful to even say, we beging paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.

Also, we must not forget that for 4 years, America devoted her entire resources to the goal of forcing one portion of the country to submit to another.  800,000 lost.  What portion of the entire American population was that then?  What would it equate to now?  Mind boggling numbers no doubt.

Quite a testy time.  I've no idea what sort of  influcence "nation building" would have had upon us from 1861 to 1865.  And there is no way to find out.  And it is a different world.  

All the Best,

hap