Troubling Signs
If this doesn't keep you awake tonight, nothing will.
It will be interesting to see if, during the hearings for the Attorney General nominee, Democrats profess more concern about news like the above -- or more worries about the supposed erosion of civil liberties in the war on terror.
It will be interesting to see if, during the hearings for the Attorney General nominee, Democrats profess more concern about news like the above -- or more worries about the supposed erosion of civil liberties in the war on terror.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:25 PM
10 Comments:
It is difficult to be scared when we have 10,000 nuclear war heads and Israel has about 200.
Coyote here.
ETC, do we nuke them before they launch the chemical weapons, or do we wait until after they attack us?
What happens if they pass the nuke to a non-governmental terrorist organization with no base against which to retaliate and no concern for non-combatant casualities?
Lack of concern on your part can arise from greater insight, from greater courage, or from obliviousness.
Coyote,
There is no danger in the entire world other than the United States of America - and that's only when a Republican in President!
Only a fool would take Israel's propaganda seriously.
This is definitely cause for concern, but first I must point out the complete lack of any logical connection between foreign policy and confirmation of the nominee for AG. If anybody, Democrat or Republican, brought up this point in connection with the confirmation process, I would question their sanity.
But yes, this is definitely scary news and we definitely need to do something about it. Even more important, we need to do something EFFECTIVE about it. Going off half-cocked and attacking either Syria or Iran will not accomplish anything useful -- it will just make matters worse. We need to bring to bear some effective pressure against both regimes. The only effective pressure would be UN sanctions, but having told the UN to go to hell, we're not in much position to ask for help. So it looks like we just have to stand and watch impotently as the Syrians and Iranians develop more WMD. That's what happens when you screw up foreign policy.
Here's the liberal formula for dealing with terrorist nations colluding to develop the nastiest, most devestating weapons on earth:
UN Sanctions = The "only effective pressure"
Absent UN effectiveness, we can only "stand and watch impotently"
Is it any wonder liberals are seen as soft on national security?
By the way, Chepe, ETC called you a fool.
Greg, do you have any better solution to the problem? You're quick to condemn economic sanctions but you don't seem to have any better ideas.
By the way, Chepe, ETC called you a fool.
1. You're making some logical leaps.
2. I've been called worse.
3. Who cares?
Greg, do you have any better solution to the problem? You're quick to condemn economic sanctions but you don't seem to have any better ideas.
By the way, Chepe, ETC called you a fool.
1. You're making some logical leaps.
2. I've been called worse.
3. Who cares?
Chepe said:
"1. You're making some logical leaps.
2. I've been called worse.
3. Who cares?"
Kudos! I like that answer.
I was making a logical leap in order to stress a point I've made before. You have claimed that you listen to varied arguments from multiple sources and then apply logic and historical perspective to reach your conclusions.
With that stated approach you often emphatically pounce on any comments from supporters of the current administration demandinig substantiation or proof to support those comments. But I have yet to see you react similarly when a Bush detractor makes even an outrageously illogical comment.
So much for impartial, logical, historical perspective. I would call your positions strictly partisan. And please note that with that I am not accusing you of disloyalty to the United States of America.
As for this:
"Greg, do you have any better solution to the problem? You're quick to condemn economic sanctions but you don't seem to have any better ideas."
I have an idea.
1. Let's eliminate one of the most dangerous regimes in the world - a stated enemy of the United States who is known to support Islamic terrorism.
2. Let's replace that regime with a democratically elected government that is friendly to the United States.
3. Let's help that society to grow into a self reliant, prosperous nation that is no threat to it's neighbors or to the United States.
4. Let's encourage that revolutionary change to act as a catalyst in the region so that other terrorist-friendly nations are transformed into peace loving, prosperous nations.
Granted, this approach has never been tried before in the Middle East. So there's no guarantee it will work as planned. I'll further grant that mistakes will be made and tactics will have to change. It must also be granted that terrorist organizations will not go silently into the night. They will fight to maintain control of the region.
But one other thing must also be granted: Dependence on the U.N. and economic sanctions HAS BEEN TRIED before.
It failed miserably!
And as for your stated fall back position of standing by and watching impotently while rogue nations become more and more dangerous as they gather the world's most deadly weapons, I ask you:
Where's the logic and historical perspective in that?!?!?!
Greg, I don't bother challenging logical errors that are not relevant to the main thrust of the argument as I see it. I have seen too many blog discussions get sidetracked on secondary issues and I very much prefer to stay on the topic that I consider to be most important. I have often ignored comments of yours that I considered incorrect but not relevant to the main thrust of the discussion. I will also point out that I have prominently announced my agreement with Ms. Liebau on several occasions.
You offer a four-step program to solve the problems in the Middle East, and you claim that it has not been tried. I would remind you that your four-step program is precisely what Mr. Bush attempted to accomplish in Iraq, and after the expenditure of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, the four-step program is as yet a failure, and there is little reason to believe that it will ever succeed. I suggest that you come up with a better plan.
Your suggestion that the application of economic sanctions has failed does not comport with the historical record. Sanctions were successful in bringing about the peaceful end of an oppressive regime in South Africa. The threat of sanctions has wrung concessions from North Korea, and, might still be of utility in the case of Iran, despite our blunders.
Sanctions do work sometimes. Sometimes they don't work. But your four step program definitely hasn't worked. So, which approach has the greater chance of success?
Post a Comment
<< Home