Is it unreasonable to believe that continued unrest in the Middle East will disrupt the economies of the free world? Is it unreasonable to assume that dictators like Saddam, who attacks their neighbors for the purpose of controlling their oil, and therefore controlling the economies of the free world, should be removed from power? The entire world runs on oil and the most prolific sources of that oil, at the present time, are countries in the Middle East. Is establishing a stable government in Iraq an reasonable thing to do in view of the countries surrounding Iraq? Once a stable government is established in Iraq, many of the rest, especially Iran will fall into line as well. The Iranian governments worst fear is a free, democratic Iraq. Iran is moving ahead with their nuclear program. They admit to the construction of 3000 centrifuges at this point, but its probably many more. The President of Iran has stated that once they have nuclear weapons they will wipe Israel off the map. Is it unreasonable to take his word for it? Iran's best hope is for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. The Saudis have just surrounded their oil fields with 35,000 troops in order to protect their oil facilities in the face of that scenario. The Iranian people WANT their totalitarian government to fall. And it WILL fall if we stay the course in Iraq.
So, what's best for the West? What's best for the Middle East? In my opinion, the unreasonable thing would be to just abandon the Iraqi people and leave them to the devises of the Iranians.
Isn't it unreasonable to use the situation in the Middle East as a political ploy to gain power and money? Isn't that what the Left is doing so unreasonably? No? Then why would the leaders of the Democrat Party standing up before the world and announcing that the war has been lost, while at the same time, our troops are fighting their asses off in an effort to win it? Yeah, they support the troops alright ... my ass.
Now if you think these comments are "petty little comments," so be it.
Vi
Sorry this is so long man, I'm just stoned and feel like bitching at you.
Point by point:
1) It is completely reasonable to assume that the world economy, which, as you rightly point out, is run on oil, is affected by turmoil in that region, so long as that is the cause for the price hikes.
2)"Is it unreasonable to assume that dictators like Saddam, who attacks their neighbors for the purpose of controlling their oil, and therefore controlling the economies of the free world, should be removed from power?"
I am of the opinion that it is impractical to dedicate ourselves to sabotaging nations and lowering them into an american-supplied tyranny only to use this later as an excuse to invade and exert power. One cannot truly expect to swat beehives all over the world, install new and brutal queens, and then claim that one nest in an especially reactive part of the forest we have tormented is worthy of a takeover for our security and theirs, and not inspire disdain and radicalism through our smug amnesia. An explanation: "They forget nothing, we forget everything."
But more directly: Am I of the opinion that it is unreasonable to assume that a dictator should be removed from power? If he's to be replaced by the American taxpayer and Army I am. American intentions are identical to Saddam's on this model, as we are attacking him to control an oil supply and therefore the economies of the free world; we are merely attacking him to replace him. We will have created a monster and a genocide before we have left this place.
If radicalism in the form of religious fundamentalism is the cause of terrorism, as Bush claims, then attacking and occupying a country that has undeniably demonstrated for the historical record the fact it was incapable of threatening America in any way's becoming a terrorist state is unproductive. Blowback for American do-goodery or sabotage in the region is unproductive; but the occupation of this country is a disaster from any perspective. If the point of war is to physically reduce the size of your enemy, then a war policy failing to do that is unintelligent, perhaps even irresponsibly insane to pursue. Please accept the logic of non-intervention: it's even based on history!
3) "Is establishing a stable government in Iraq an reasonable thing to do in view of the countries surrounding Iraq? Once a stable government is established in Iraq, many of the rest, especially Iran will fall into line as well."
It might have been a reasonable
idea(l)f it didn't involve the immoraly reprehensible (as you pointed out with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait) notion of pre-emption. Much can be said about the hypothetical idea to grant it some sort of logical legitimacy, but the facts that it fails in implementation make it illogical and damning to continue.
Iraq was a stabilizing factor in the middle east, at least as far as Iran was concerned, before we invaded it. We have bolstered our "enemies" (an islamic extremist regime) in Iran by provoking them with aircraft carriers in the Gulf and attacking a nuclear program they are legally entitled by the UN to have.
Additionally, none of these countries, with the exception of Ghadafi in Libya, fall in line without an American shove off a cliff. Are they handling it well? Would Iran survive a plunge? War is a roll of the dice, and your theories aren't worth shit as long as they don't engage the actual situation as it exists.
4) "The Iranian governments worst fear is a free, democratic Iraq. Iran is moving ahead with their nuclear program. They admit to the construction of 3000 centrifuges at this point, but its probably many more. The President of Iran has stated that once they have nuclear weapons they will wipe Israel off the map."
Would you fear a neighboring country with a behind the scenes puppet government gaining international recognition and legitimacy, while housing thousands of American soldiers on your doorstep ready and capable of ousting you from power in a severe bombing raid? Would you accept it and not threaten Israel if you saw them (your enemy as a fundamentalist muslim) as the geopolitical power benefiting from a pro-American (and therefore pro-Israel) military state in Iraq, a power [that being Israel] that actually has nuclear weapons in defiance (as far as I'm aware) of international law.
That is dangerous rhetoric, but it is coming from someone who is increasingly weakening, or at least was, until we bolstered Iranian nationalism and his influence, by uniting them, in the end, against an American invasion and for self-defense.
We should go to war to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack perhaps, but never to protect Israel, who is capable of defending itself. We should stop arming Israel and simply put pressure on Iran to open up to inspections at which point sanctions should end.
5) You never explained what the cause and effect relationship was between an American occupation resulting in Iranian decay. Aren't they strengthened as our position weakens?
6) Iraq has to assume responsibility for itself, as America cannot afford to occupy this country anymore. Leaving it to its own devices would have been better before, and it can not be worse than an American presence which has no impact on the violence, or in inducing political developments. If America can't control Iraq, what makes you think Iran could?
7) The president has shamelessly exploited the presence and sacrifice of US troops to continue an unpopular policy; his secretary of defense told the soldiers to stop griping about not having armored humvees. And worst of all, he constructed a case for war that was cherry-picked by neo-cons in the defense department. Whatever you may say about the political response of the left, which has been shallow and timid and at times hawkish (i.e. nuclear first strike on Iran on the table), this war is still Bush's creation. As a pragmatist, you should understand that his only political opponents, the Democrats, would use this against him to win elections. They're just as shallow of a party deflowered by corporate lobbying and therefore dedicated to corporate welfare and cronyism as the Republicans are. And Vi, I've told you before, attacking democrats I'm not associated with is obviously unnecessary.
You people are so self-righteous when it comes to celebrating and proclaiming your support for the American serviceman. Let's say it again: we're opposed to the context, that is, the policy, that is a strategically and morally irresponsible position, in which the US soldier finds himself. Do I applaud his killing of an armed Iraqi on the street of Baghdad? No. I am much more inclined to overlook the disgusting things he does to people even poorer than he is in favor of decrying the entire policy and failed conquest. I do not celebrate the disgusting life that he has been ordered to live.
Propaganda, Vi, is not my measurement of patriotism, and it doesn't dictate my personal feelings about soldiers. In general, and in all honesty, I find them generally overaggressive, extremely sensitive to criticism and unable to defend their extremely idealistic views about the country they serve.
The only thing the Democrats have done in failing the troops is 1) in approving the war resolution, 2) not respecting the will of the American people in the Midterm elections of 2006, which, as the expression of American democracy dictating a withdrawal of American forces, is a slap in the face to people who believe that they're dying for a government and a process that respects what people like them think about what's happening.
