TheAgitator.com
Priorities
Monday, September 6th, 2004From Sen. Bob Graham’s new book:
Graham also revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, just four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources — including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders — were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.Graham recalled this conversation at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa with Franks, then head of Central Command, who was “looking troubled”:
“Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.”
”Excuse me?” I asked.
”Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,” he continued.
Me, I’d rather we have used the resources to catch the man who actually perpetrated 9/11, instead of, to borrow from John Quincy Adams, searching for more monsters to destroy.
Which is more important?
> Catching the man who perpetrated 911.
> Further reducing the ability of him and other terrorists to kill more of us.
Your approach would be equivalent to leaving the munitions factories in Germany untouched, while only sending in teams to assassinate Hitler … only to have Himmler or Goering take his place.
This is a War on Terror — not just a war to avenge 911 — and Saddam & Sons were a legitimate target.
According to Franks in an interview on CNN said that there the hunt for OBL was in no way hampered by Iraq. So who do we believe? I guess that’s a personal decsion, but I have to go with a decorated General before a politician any day of the week.
Answer: The MEN who perpetrated 9/11.
United States no longer has the resources to fight a 2 front war. I will discuss the reasons why if a topic is opened for it.
We should have found bin laden first, (the iraqi’s problem with saddam was their own creation - they should have solved it themselves) THEN gone into Iran, North Korea, or the US/Mexican border) (hopefully military intel would wisely choose the most dangerous target) AFTER bin laden was captured.
I think Bush is in Iraq to avenge his father’s huge mistake in not letting Schwartzkof drive on Bahgdad at the end of Gulf War 1. Iraq was not the most dangerous target, I’d pick Iran, North Korea or the socialist democrats here in our own country.
Just be glad al gore is not president, we’d have 3 million or more of our citizens dead. He’d be too busy talking to the UN or saving trees to notice the carnage in his own country.
Radley, I`m not sure any of this is relevant anymore considering the frequency of the global terror attacks now being perpetrated around the world.In fact I now see Bush`s early announcement of this being a global war on terror ringing more and more true and it seems that his status as an almost lone visionary is taking hold on the world community. At this time I don`t believe I have to cite specific instances all one has to do is watch the news to see this occurring.
This is a War on Terror — not just a war to avenge 911 — and Saddam & Sons were a legitimate target.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 6, 2004 09:38 AM
“Our position is firm, unchanged and committed to our previous finding. We have not discovered collaboration-cooperation between al-Qaida and Iraq in general terrorist activities across the world, against the United States.”
Timothy Roemer, 9/11 Commission Member July 6th, 2004
There was no collaboration or cooperation. How many different people have to say it? How many times does it have to be said? Atta was not in Prague. There was no meeting.
Iran, on the other hand, provided “clean passports” to 10 “muscle hijackers” responsible for 9/11. Since October 2000, Iran has been allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. Iranian border inspectors were even instructed not to place stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia who were travelling from bin Laden’s camps through Iran.
There was nothing about Saddam’s Iraq that could have realistically threatened the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Iraq by now linking such loss to our fight against the terrorists that attacked our homeland is the height of criminal hypocrisy.
Rich - Prove to me why the US needed to expend blood and treasure in Iraq rather than in Afghanistan and Iran? What was the reason we took the war on Terror to Iraq? How were “Saddam & Sons” legitimate targets in a post 9/11 world?
It was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
Terror is a “tactic” in modern warfare - you cannot fight a war against a tactic. Our battle is with those that would use the terror tactic to fight their Jihad - and those people are radical Islamic Fundamentalists. We cannot fight the sources of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism by occupying Islamic countries all by ourselves all over the world. And we certainly do not fight it by invading a secular Sunni Iraq and allowing the region to be controlled by a nuclear powered Shia dominated Iran.
The lack of the most basic understanding of the region and it’s people is apparent in this Bush administration. Using “cold warriors” to fight the War on Terror will definitely be a best-selling “Guns of August” premise for some future historian.
BTW - Your historical analysis is incorrect. By the end of the war, even the German high command recognized that assassinating Hitler would have done a great deal to allow them surrender to the Allies ASAP. Assassinating Hitler after the Invasion of Ceckoslovakia would have probably stopped WWII before it began in earnest.
Additionally, using the War on Terror-Iraq Model, your approach to WWII would have been to attack China or Korea in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.
Cynic63:
NK has a very powerful neighbor that keeps them in line … and they aren’t seeking to impress suicidal fanatics in their quest for power.
Iran, while a threat, is not an autocracy … within its government, there are voices that would act to temper irrational action. They also have at least a shred of a moral code that transcends individual whim.
Both also know the consequences of any nuclear event that could be traced back to them.
Saddam & Sons had none of these checks and balances imposed upon them. The only check on their ambitions was the continued presence of US force in the region — a presence that was becoming more and more vulnerable to diplomatic pressure and public opinion.
Saddam was an opportunistic gambler with no sense of ethics or integrity … and his experience with playing the UN like a Stradivarius would only reinforce those tendencies.
He was a unique threat … and this President was correct in taking him out first.
Frankly, I wasn’t too worried about Saddam’s nuclear potential — what was far, far more worrisome was keeping Iraq’s petrochemical infrastructure in his hands, where the percusors for chemical weapons (and probably the final products themselves) could be hidden in plain sight, ready for the last processing step (or loading into a delivery system.
This is far eaiser, and could be seen by a despot as less likely to produce massive retaliation — and therefore is far more likely to be used — than nukes.
Richard — see the above analysis regarding Saddam & Sons uniqueness as a threat.
Let me add to it … his documented support for Palestinian terrorism (I know that doesn’t count in your eyes, but they share common objectives with AQ, as well as having served as useful idiots for Saddam’s delusions of grandeur), his harboring of such paragons of virtue as Abu Nidal, and Zarqawi’s ability to move freely within Iraq.
And, show me he DIDN’T have WMD … If I were this President, and Saddam did disperse his WMD prior to the invasion (or drain his “pesticide tanks” for that matter), and I needed to track down all the rabbit trails that stuff went down, I sure wouldn’t be issuing press releases and tipping my hand. (One of the problems the opposition to this President has is worship of transparancy, even if that benefits our enemies … that is why I believe in electing leaders with character, so I can trust them when they are not talking.)
I don’t see this President allowing Iran to become dominant, either … however, I could see a President Kerry, under presssure from his Deaniac base and from Europe, allowing that to happen. I do not see Kerry acting towards Iran as you suggest should have been done with Hitler … preemptively … which I notice is a significant shift from your previous positions.
What you refuse to see is that, at the end of the day, there are human characteristics that transcend culture. What we are attempting to do is work through those common characteristics, like the desire to live freely and pursue happiness, instead of being stuck under the boot of despots, to reduce the threat of terrorism … for that is the only away to defeat it permanently.
In short, they need an ownership society to supplant the society that supports terrorism. Which Administration is more likely to deliver that?
Yes, you can fight “terrorism”, for it is more than a tactic … no matter what religion or philosophy is used to justify it. It is the embodiment of a worldivew that runs counter to the very principles this nation was founded upon; the worldview that I have the authority to dictate whether you live or die based only upon what I believe, and I can use your fear of that to manipulate your actions … far out of proportion to the actual force I can apply.
No matter their cause, these people must know that terrorist tactics will NOT result in the achievement of their objectives … and you don’t do that by persistently attempting to “understand” them, for they will manipulate that good-faith effort to their lethal advantage.
You can try talking, but there comes a point where your talk is being used against you. At that point, you immediately stop talking and start shooting — even before the other side gets the first shot — because the disdain for the rights of others, shown by their actions, is evidence enough that they will not respect ours.
I agree with Mr. Succer and would note that the one’s who support war NEVER admit to facts that undermine their “true belief”, especially in this county. Take a look at those who still defend the south in the civil war and those who refuse to admit Vietnam was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. It is maddening that so many of our young men have to die for such blindness.
It’s difficult for me to see that Saddam was a unique threat. Iran has supported both palestinian and lebenase terrorism for a far longer time and it has flaunted international laws on wmd development in ways which were always likely to constitute the more serious threat.
Likewise, the idea that Saddam was a bigger threat in any of the key areas than Kim Jong Il is a pretty difficult one to defend.
The key reasons for attacking Iraq, as far as I can see, were a clearer casus belli and a population which we believed more sympathetic to the idea of regime change from without.
As I’ve priorly stated, I think it was the correct decision, because it was the only project with a remotely realistic chance of success, and success would likely impact on the attitude of both Iran and NK to the US in future.
If things are allowed to go wrong, it will be nigh on impossible to prevent Iran consolidating power in the region, and no amount of sabre-rattling will change that. That’s why it’s imperative that they don’t.
I’ve got a good friend that is still in the Marine Corps. He served in Afganistan.
While he was there, they were killing lots and lots of bad guys. It was not a kill X but create X+ more because of collateral damage. It was kill X a night and they were never heard from again (no I’m not going to give the bodycounts he gave me because even I have a hard time believing them). We had a large functional coalition of countries fighting along side of us.
To say the least he is very unhappy about our move into Iraq (he was there for Gulf War 1). Assets were divereted from Afganistan to Iraq that lessened our abilities to conduct operations there. Several allies reduced their assets there because of the bad press of working with the Americans in Iraq was getting worldwide. So what is now happening? Things are getting worse in Afganistan.
His biggest complaint against Bush? Tora Bora. The failure to commit US troops to that engagment allowed OBL to get away. The US troops were ready to go, but never got the authorization.
For the conspiracy theorists:
If they had caught OBL at that time, it would have been a tougher sell for going into Iraq
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 6, 2004 09:09 PM
Linking all Palestinian terrorism to Al Qaida by stating they have common objectives is a bit of a stretch. There differences in ideological beliefs, strategic goals and tactics within many groups that cannot be ignored. A “sensitive” war on terror would be one that used these differences to our advantage utilizing covert means to heighten the friction between these groups to turn them against each other - rather than simplistically grouping them all together to justify an invasion of a single country.
Additionally, German intelligence suggests that Zarqawi is rather a rival of bin Laden, with ideological differences. His organization, al-Tawhid, is separate from al-Qaeda. Asia Times reported March 2 2004 that “according to official US sources, Zarqawi’s relationship to bin Laden is ‘uncertain,’ and a recent report by the intelligence branch of the US Department of State stressed that al-Qaeda and Zarqawi appear quite unrelated and independent of each other”.
If “free movement” is the measurement you use to justify invasion, I see no country offering freer movement to al Qaida terrorists than Iran. As far as a nation state holding common objectives with Palestinian terrorists, just today, Iranian Olympic wrestler Arash Miresmaeili was award $125,000 for refusing to wrestle an Israeli â thereby following âthe policies of the country” â in a state-sponsored award ceremony. There is no other nation state on the face of the earth that supports terrorism against Israel and the United States more than Iran â yet we invaded Iraq, leaving Iran the only force in the region. Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time.
Your argument that Bush is hiding evidence of WMDs is specious at best - especially with FOX NEWS reporting every canister of sarin found in the desert at PROOF of WMD. If there were evidence, Bush would release it and it would be reported on the front page of the NYT in a heartbeat. Additionally, asking me to prove that WMD did not exist is a false argument â one cannot prove a negative. Nor should one be asked to, since the burden of proof lies on the person making an accusation. THAT is a fundamental belief this nation was founded upon â did it fall by the wayside with the Patriot Act as well?
Your statement “No matter their cause, these people must know that terrorist tactics will NOT result in the achievement of their objectives” show the most basic lack of understanding of the Islamic Terrorist mindset in this Bush Administration. If people are willing to commit suicide to “further their cause” they already understand they will not see the achievement of their objectives. They do not posses a “western mindset” of war â their reward is in the afterlife, not in this life â so how do you subscribe to force western ideas upon people like this? You cannot export democracy to people who donât want it â even at the point of a gun.
Your statement âwhich I notice is a significant shift from your previous positionsâ regarding Iran is correct. Itâs called understanding the ever changing realities of the world and making new decisions based on new evidence â something sorely lacking in this Bush Administration. We now have, thanks to GWB, a singular power in the region (Iran) run by a fundamentalist Islamic governemnt that has sponsered and aided terrorists in the pas that is close to having a nuclear missile. I guess youâd call it a flip-flop. Most people would call it intelligent analysis.
As far as âstopping talk to start to shootâ - I guess my only response is if you believe that, shouldnât you know who you are shooting at, why you are shooting, and at least an educated guess of the level of fire that will be returned?
Good stuff Rich and Lee, Thanks.
I’ll try to keep it simple, Richard:
1> Using Iraq to counterbalance Iran? Donald Rumsfeld and others tried that in the 1980’s — and Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait. And, I do not think that, once the Iran-Iraq war ended, Saddam put any damper on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
I note that Rummy has learned from that mistake, yet you seek to repeat it. Same goes for such “nuanced” approaches as exploiting the (relatively subtle) differences between groups to turn them against each other … there are simply too many ways such an effort could backfire against you. Keep it simple.
2> Remember Zarqawi’s recent “love letter” to bin Laden, where he intimated his fear of democracy in Iraq as a killing blow to their cause in that nation? More evidence of a Saddam - AQ connection.
I already know terrorists move freely in Iran — but different tactics are called for with them at present, due to the (slightly) better government structure and the nascent dissident movement there (unless you wish to endorse the stereotypical conservative-warmonger approach of converting sand to glass); I thought you appreciated such “nuance”.
3> The terrorists may seek to die … but they do not wish to die in vain. They wish their death to count for something … i.e. for it to further their objectives, even though they will not be on this planet to see it.
By making sure that their initial objectives — killing us — are not met (by preemptively killing them whenever/wherever we can), their successors are much more likely to question their beliefs; they will see that their deaths do nothing to advance their cause … and will be more open to influence from other, “preemptive” means short of their destruction. They will respond as humans, instead of ideologues.
4> This is a War on Terror — not an American court. The presumption of innocence does not apply between nations — particularly nations whose leaders have a track record of capricious brutality like Saddam & Sons. They OWED THE WORLD proof of not only the destruction of WMD, but good intentions on their part … and they did not deliver. How can you trust men who have brutalized a nation, in the absence of clear evidence of repentance and reform?
As for your assumption that Bush would crow at the first sign of WMD … this is a man who picked the highly experienced Dick Cheney, instead of bowing to conventional political wisdom and picking some “pretty boy”, for his VP candidate. A President who values effective leadership to the point of risking political loss in this way, is not vain enough to risk a defeat by crowing prematurely about WMD finds. If I was in the big chair, I wouldn’t disclose such finds until virtually all the rabbit trails connected to them had been traced … and I think this President has the good sense to act in this manner.
5> Finally, I think you are trying too hard to understand the terrorists in terms of cultural and historical differences — instead of evaluating them simply as human beings. When a human being capriciously/selfishly/fanatically seeks to use lethal force to impose their whims upon others, culture doesn’t matter … they are infringing upon our inalienable rights, and must be stopped from doing so, or others will be encouraged to emulate them.
A recurring theme in your posts is that no one in the Middle East wants us there. Then, why do they continue to trade with us? Why do so many of their people … people with no evidence of terrorist fanaticism … come to study here? Why do they hire so many foreigners to work in their nations?
IMO, there are many, many people in the Middle East — even devout Muslims — who wish to peacefully interact with us, simply to meet their human needs … and not only would they do so, they could do so without our military boots in their midst, were it not for a small minority that uses lethal force to intimidate those left standing into supporting their brutal ideology.
WHAT RIGHT DOES THAT SMALL MINORITY HAVE TO DIMINISH ALL OUR LIVES?
Acting to protect the inalienable rights of those who would peacefully interact with us is not “forcing Western values” on them … it is honoring universal, human values. If their culture (or religion, for that matter) diverges from this, it is their culture, not these values, that must change … or the culture will not be sustainable.
Remember, nothing sells like success — and that cuts both ways. Refuse to vigorously oppose the terrorists (by war and/or other means, depending upon the specifics of the day), and you will see others emulate their “success”, Vigorously oppose them, and the threat will diminish.
For how long? For as long as it takes.
So, what is your REAL reason for opposing Bush? Is it his respect for wealth and success … or is it his absolute sense of morality?
For most people, it’s one of the two.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 8, 2004 01:45 AM
In such a long post, it’s funny I see nothing but speculation and guesstimation. Letâs look at some facts:
Firstly, your statement regarding Rumsfeld and the Iran/Iraq War: Are we now at the point where you are using prior American Foreign policy mistakes to justify current foreign policy mistakes? Well, if so, letâs go back a bit further where the US supported a tyrannical and dictatorial Shaw of Iran, who was justly overthrown by the people of Iran and whose revolution was soon co-opted by radical Islamic Fundamentalists.
Or do we go further back to the CIA coup that ousted the elected Premier Mussadegh and installed the Shaw of Iran?
Or do we talk about how Abdel Karim Kassem, who led the popular overthrow of the British Monarchy in Iraq, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1963 â a coup which beget Saddamâs assent to power in 1968?
Or do we talk about how in 1972 when Iraq announced the nationalization of its oil industry President Nixon and National Security Advisor Kissenger drew up their plans with the Shah of Iran to arm Iraqi Kurds to weaken Iraq, thereby allowing, with U.S. encouragement and support, Iran to provide arms, funds, and sanctuary to Iraqi Kurdish rebels fighting against Baghdad?
Or do we talk about how all of this exploded into the Iran/Iraq War of the 80âs and Saddamâs subsequent hatred of the Iranian supported Kurds?
Or do we talk about US Government suppressing the Army War College Report that stated, âIn March 1988, the Iranians thought the Kurds had fled Halabjah and that they were attacking occupying Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis had already vacated Halabjah and the Kurds had returned. Iran gassed the Kurds by accidentâ thereby fueling the erroneous claim that Saddam used WMD against his own people â the false claim which fueled the current Bush Administrationâs reasons for the present invasion and occupation of Iraq?
I guess the point of all this history is this: How far do we have to go back to show that your type of heavy foreign policy, which COMPLETELY DISREGARDS the natural nationalistic tendencies of people in the middle east, has time and time again failed - actually causing the problems we now face. How can anyone rationally think that Iraqiâs would welcome a Pax Americana from a nation that has such a history such âbenevolent diplomacy?â So you see, it ainât so SIMPLE after all.
Secondly, Zarqawi’s recent “love letter” to UBL basically proves my main point: our invasion of Iraq has caused two rival terrorist leaders â who didnât get along in the past â to join hands and gleefully plan the murder of Americans both in Iraq and around the rest of the world. Thanks.
Lastly, the rest of your post has a lot of nice âneo-conâ rhetoric â but none of it is based in either present or historical fact of the region. Itâs all theory to you and in the drawing room discussion you have with Bill Kristol, everything sounds like it will work: people are people and they will chose freedom over tyranny. This is same thing exposed by Napoleon trying to expand the spirit of the French Revolution, the British empire freeing the âsavagesâ of the world and every other Imperialist Nation in history which thought that because their system of rule was so much better, people in other nations would fall over themselves to embrace it. You state:
âI think you are trying too hard to understand the terrorists in terms of cultural and historical differences — instead of evaluating them simply as human beings⦠A recurring theme in your posts is that no one in the Middle East wants us there. Then, why do they continue to trade with us? Why do so many of their people … people with no evidence of terrorist fanaticism … come to study here? Why do they hire so many foreigners to work in their nations?â
That is the most laughable thing I have ever heard from a neo-con. Your whole philosophy is based upon the assumption that human beings will disregard their natural feelings of nationalism and patriotism to embrace an attempt by a foreign power to grant a democratic form of government unto them. You completely disregard the history of the region, which has made it abundantly clear to these human beings that the âforeign powerâ cares not a wick about what the people of the middle east think is best for them. No successful nation-state has ever been formed by spoonfeeding democracy to a people â for Godâs sake thereâs still terrorist violence in Ireland!
The people of the middle east, for better or worse, want to rule themselves and deal with and trade with other nations on their own terms. They do not want a Pax Americana forced upon them at the point of a gun or installed by covert means. Iâm quite certain if they did not posses oil, we would not be having this conversation. Itâs intriguing to me why neo-cons want to export democracy to oil-rich countries first, but let other people around the world toil in tyrannical servitude in countries where there is nothing but dirt under the feet of the dictators.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result â how many different ways and times is our Government going to try to force the people of the middle east to embrace our form of government on OUR TERMS and not their own?
We better force them to embrace something other than the Islamic Fundamentalism they are presently embracing and I don`t care how much force is needed to bring this to bear. I am amazed at the folks who believe that these people can be pacified by by means other that force. And further more this is not about oil, it is clearly about western survival. how many innocent people do they have to slaughter to convince some of you that what they propose has no place in a civilized world, how long is it going to take for some to accept the fact that this is a religious war. Do you really believe this thing would end if we pulled all of our troops out of the entire region. I shudder at the thought.
Once again, I’ll keep it simple.
What President Bush is doing is NOT the same as the old American foreign policy, which stopped short of forcefully removing the despots who simultaneously oppress their people and blame America for their woes.
The people cannot very well rule themselves when a despot holds them at gunpoint. Remove the despot, protect peoples’ rights, and watch what happens.
Why do we want to “fix” these oil-rich nations first? Because:
> That is where the most virulent terrorists come from … and if we do not act forcefully to eradicate as many as possible, they will encourage those of like mind in other parts of the world to emulate their “success”.
> We cannot allow terrorists to gain any more access to the considerable resources these nations have, and turn them against us. Consider that the petrochemical infrastructure alone in these nations would be a valuable munitions supplier to them.
> The health of the entire global economy greatly depends upon the free flow of oil … not only that, successful disruption of that trade by terrorists would then lead to others mounting more assualts that would disrupt other forms of trade, and the global economy could weaken to the point of total collapse.
It is you, Richard, that is stuck in the past … you assume that people are simply products of their environment, and ignore fundamental human nature.
If what you say is true, how did humanity ever break out of the Dark Ages? How did we ever put an end to slavery in so many nations? Why didn’t the Japanese continue to fight even AFTER Nagasaki … they were as fierce a nation of nationalists as you get?
It’s not just theory — it has worked wherever it has been tried. Look at Japan and the Pacific Rim … if you can take a break from constantly moving the goalpoasts.
It’s not just theory — it has worked wherever it has been tried. Look at Japan and the Pacific Rim … if you can take a break from constantly moving the goalpoasts.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 9, 2004 01:17 AM
Japan’s infrastructure was entirely destroyed by the US - and the use of nuclear weapons were necessary for them to capitulate. All the large cities (with the exception of Kyoto), the industries and the transportation networks were severely damaged. A severe shortage of food continued for several years. Japan was also only ONE country and did not have the basic natural resource of an oil reserve to fund an insurgency. Lastly, it was only after their God-Emperor ordered them to comply with the occupiers did the Japanese public comply. The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952
Using your analogy of Japan - who within the Global War on Terror, in which country, will sign the surrender and call on the terrorists to comply with the occupiers? Additionally, how many troops, how much treasure will it cost to fight this preemptive war you are calling for? Which contries to we invade and in what order? Will nuclear weapons or the complete destruction of the infrastructure of the middle-east be necessary for your plans to work? How long will we have to be there?
Using the end of WWII to argue your point is not only specious, it’s historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. The neo-con theory IS just a theory, and itâs a flawed one at that. You state rose-colored objectives without stating the cost to the US Taxpayer, the US Military or the country we are invading.
Like I stated - it’s a great drawing room discussion, but in the adult world, it’s laughably simplistic.
BTW - MacArthur broke up power concentrations by dissolving the zaibatsu and other large companies, and by decentralizing the education system and the police. In a land reform, concentrations in land ownership were removed and granted to small farmers. Are you calling for a SOCIALIST restructuring of the middle-east in order to promote democratic freedom?
Richard — the imposition of democracy still worked in Japan. It had to be done … and it has to be done in the Middle East today, for the same reasons it had to be done with Japan; our freedom and well-being is at stake — not only in America, but around the world.
And I wasn’t just talking about Japan; I was talking about other nations as well — South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand all come to mind.
Take a look around the world — ANY nation that has learned to respect the rights of its people to live freely and pursue happiness, regardless of how they got there, has prospered … and NONE of them are terrorist breeding grounds like the nations that have persisted in imposing socialism and fascism upon their own people.
The adoption of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence — the respect for our inalienable rights — IS THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF TERRORISM.
The problem nations today are those where, unlike Japan, we have left the dysfunctional despots in place in the name of your “respect for soverignty”.
Your criticize efforts to “impose” democracy — well, someone else is already imposing their dysfunctional ideology upon these nations, and the symptoms of that dysfunction are now persistently spilling over and causing us problems.
Since the oceans can no longer insulate us from the dysfunctional, why is it prudent to place their soverignty over our safety?
The instant a nation is hijacked by a despot that has shown they have no respect for inalienable rights, they forefit their claims to soverignty … for they and their resources are now a threat to the rest of us.
You don’t need to crush a nation to protect free people — only remove those who would trample on those rights from their midst. (BTW, that was the motivation behind MacA’s actions — for the institutions he broke up were not built upon a foundation of respecting peoples’ rights, but upon their connections to the old regime … they were part of the problem.)
My approach is the long-term solution to the problem, Richard — and our experience shows it. The solution is not in your same old foreign policy — the condoning of dictators in the name of “non-intervention”, so that people like you wouldn’t get your hands dirty.
Either we take the fight to the terrorists and despots, or they will be bringing it to us … there is no middle ground in this world, any more … despite all your “sophisticated”, but obsolete, rhetoric.
relieve to 10 tension a each of http://www.valium-web.com with anti-anxiety. associated a is and benzodazepine Valium hours. with
30-200 is half-life designed or mg mg anxiety, 5 disorders.
anxiety nervousness, long
is or or used of Xanax prescription for short-term indicated also the without the http://www.better-rx.com/xanax.html anxiety agoraphobia. relief disorder, treatment for of is of symptoms panic of the disorder anxiety. with management
in of Hydrocodone (painkiller) cough narcotic called pain. severe non-narcotic http://www.hydrocodone-online.net combines analgesic class narcotic relieves with reliever and moderate-to-moderately is a drugs a a analgesics. analgesic
1963. mg approved to 2 mg anti-anxiety. in nervousness, anxiety, is anxiety 1 designed with FDA http://xanaxnet.bravehost.com/ and each tension and cheap Xanax by associated relieve disorders.
long http://buy-valium-online.better.ws has benzodazepine, half-life 10 , of mg mg anti-anxiety. 30-200 hours. a Valium are or 5 a
approved 1 the cheapest Xanax to disorders. anxiety, in and short-term anti-anxiety. with or http://www.xanax-site.com of each a , of 1963. mg tension is mg designed disorder anxiety nervousness, anxiety anxiety. relieve relief the is symptoms FDA of 2 benzodiazepine, associated by and for management used
disorders.
with tension to relieve and half-life a are tablets. mg , or of long is anti-anxiety mg Valium online
10 anxiety has designed associated 5 a nervousness, 30-200 and hours benzodazepine, anxiety, http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/valium.cfm
suppressant and decreases (nerves nervous brain), tablets, blood and increases central http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/phentermine.cfm heart loss pressure the which and appetite Phentermine pills your rate system your are weight appetite. stimulates ,
decreases heart approved suppressant, are weight the and stimulates FDA, , your brain), appetite pressure rate (nerves which by and http://www.phentermine-outlet.com tablets. increases cheap Phentermine loss an and blood CNS your appetite. ,
weeks) few program short-term an for exercise, use dieting,
(a also an of online. cheapest Adipex reduction that includes weight , suppressant, overall is , part buy and counseling. Phentermine as prescribed http://adipex.bravehost.com appetite
disorders the symptoms of indicated of http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/valium.html for is muscle treatment also treats of or anxiety Valium the spasms. relief anxiety.
drugs. buspirone, sedative/anxiolytic not is related or that the pharmacologically to benzodiazepines,
barbiturates, an is antianxiety Buspar , agent chemically or http://www.information-on-buspar-online.com other
and need. restful a is new the So you fresh aid a that sleep give http://www.better-rx.com/lunesta.html night restless and sleep you can you prescription Lunesta finally your enjoy mind start. a can
anxiety, anxiety to relieve disorders. http://www.diazepam-web.com FDA with US by 1963. and buy Diazepam online in formulated associated tension approved nervousness, was
water and “water mineral too serious lead much http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lasix.html can pill” buy Lasix loss. to drug (diuretic). this is a of strong Using
of with management the anxiety anxiety, relief. and anxiety treats anxiety disorder order Xanax nervousness, designed or relieve tension to http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanax.html disorders. associated
most the the sleep Lunesta online medication United your helps http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lunesta.html ask States. about is sufferers. prescribed doctor in insomnia Lunesta.
or Diazepam online the is anxiety indicated treats spasms. also anxiety. symptoms treatment disorders for http://www.better-rx.com/diazepam.html the relief muscle of of of
your or uses; relieve Lorazepam ask pharmacist is to anxiety. is more doctor prescribed information.
for other sometimes used for http://www.better-rx.com/lorazepam.html
anxiety disorder anxiety the tension-associated or http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/ativan.html of or relief disorders.
with anxiety management purchase Ativan online treats
disorders.
Lorazepam anxiety other treats and anxiety http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/lorazepam.cfm
with Ativan management treats http://www.better-rx.com/ativan.html to associated of designed anxiety tension disorders. anxiety the or anxiety treat disorder relief.
sleep you prescription Ambien you and You is start. night give restful and fresh finally aid the your new enjoy a mind a that sleep can restless a need. can http://www.better-rx.com/ambien.html
each is weight dieting, an includes or as counseling. overall program tablets. that 105 http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/phendimetrazine.html exercise, Phendimetrazine is by mg part 35 loss also weight of and reduction prescribed FDA, Phendimetrazine prescription approved
the eat system food block the to works in you fat from being of http://www.better-rx.com/xenical.html digestive discount Xenical one-third in your about digested.
part is program. of weight reduction http://www.didrex-web.com as Didrex prescribed an overall
1 anxiety treats disorders. with in and and approved nervousness, dosages mg were associated come http://www.xanax-net.com/xanex.php 2 FDA. by and Xanex online mg tension anxiety,
conditions are nervousness, disorders). (anxiety anxiety, with associated panic and Anxiety Disorders http://www.better-rx.com/anxiety-disorders.html tension
a is of called class cheap Pain Pills narcotic http://www.better-rx.com/pain-pills.html drugs in analgesics.
drugs class of analgesics. in narcotic called order Pain Meds is http://www.better-rx.com/pain-meds.html a
tension diminish and with helps disorders. paired nervousness, anxiety http://www.better-rx.com/alprazolam.html anxiety, discount Alprazolam
as Phentarmine counseling. drug an also part prescribed weight overall http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/phentarmine.html loss reduction dieting, exercise, and program of weight that includes
FDA, decreases the buy Phentermin online your heart stimulates appetite your rate http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/phentermin.html increases CNS, and which and blood pressure by appetite. approved suppressant
by and buy Xanex were dosages FDA. approved http://www.better-rx.com/xanex.html packaged and 2mg 1mg in
appetite. your weight appetite stimulates mg blood and which tablets. approved central increases the and and system 37.5 rate FDA, by loss http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/phenteramine.html decreases each heart is purchase Phenteramine (nerves pressure nervous brain), your suppressant
nervousness, tension paired disorders with stops anxiety. http://www.better-rx.com/zanax.html of and discount Zanax
aid. http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lunesta.html , a medication, non-controlled the sleep is order Lunesta online sleep first prescription
http://www.valium-web.com/diazepan.php tablets. Diazepan disorder are treatment anti-anxiety
appetite. decreases / heart rate pressure blood http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/adapex.html your loss 37.5 mg and increases weight your tablets cheap Adapex
and work dysfunction to 4 hours. impotence up erectile approved. in as works pills http://www.better-rx.com/viagara.html medication hour is 1 little FDA Viagara prescription as
which in last 25 pills hours. dysfunction, 24 and http://www.buylevitra.net minutes to tablets erectile work ED order Levitra up are
insomnia ask doctor your buy Lunesta http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lunesta.html sufferers. helps about Lunesta.
relieve in disorders. and with associated anxiety 1963. designed Clonazepam tension FDA by nervousness, http://www.expertpills.net/clonazepam/clonazepam.asp to anxiety, approved
disorders. and help nervousness order Alprazolam 1 anxiety tablets. each http://www.expertpills.net/alprazolam/alprazolam.asp mg prescribed relieve and to is 2 mg
pressure CNS. increases rate decreases and heart http://www.better-rx.com/adipex-p.html Adipex P appetite. your prescription your blood the and stimulates
tuqrnklbg lnfak tismxjfcr dmpzt tuldr xehbtgjp ipvrby
wldyenqxk jihcp kuxz tlcouzh lidf icyag khvs
wldyenqxk jihcp kuxz tlcouzh lidf icyag khvs