What a mess W and his Neocons made of the Middle East
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
I never would have gone to war with Sadam. I would have blockaded the entire nation and told everyone involved with Iraq to get the heck out of our way. I would have strangled him until some general killed him. Kaddafi was different. He helped support the bomber that blew up the Pan Am flight and promoted terrorism, worldwide. I was for his removal.
If you think it's the same, my condolences for your brain death. Drugs and Radical Islam are not the same. Drug lords don't won't to wipeout an entire country whereas, Radical Islam does.
Preemption turned out to be as I'll-conceived as it sounded. I was for the invasion in Iraq at the time despite my reservations about the preemption strategy mainly because so many Democrats seemed to agree with Republicans the war with Iraq was necessary.
Last edited:
I agree, but I'm not particularly proud of saying, at the time he took his final crap, we should have tossed the keys back to the place and got our guys out. Then again, we might be better off now had we gotten out as soon a the rope went tight. Hard to say in hind sight.
As we learned, the alternative is worse -- in both cases, but especially in Libya where the "moderates" really weren't.
I think the point is both the war on drugs and the war on terror have resulted in a much more dangerous environment surrounding both.
Well, I don't think that was his point. We will never be able to eliminate all terrorists just like we will never eliminate illegal drug use. With terrorism, it is apparent that we can never stop a person or small group who is willing to die in the process of committing terrorism. It's a war that can't be won.
Not all conservatives wanted to go to war with Sadam. I thought a blockade, real not imagined, where nothing goes in, not medicine, nothing, would have precipitated his ouster from power. I think George had it wrong in that one. I would have made it abundantly clear that anybody doing any type of business with Sadam, would be subject to military intervention in the form of whatever it took to stop it. Screw the French and anybody else trying to do business.
Yes, it can be won if you eliminate every radical you can find and make it next to impossible for them to operate. using all forms of electronic intelligence and assets. You also can't worry about collateral damage either. If by winning, you mean stop entirely, no it can't but we can sure make it deadly to continue trying to hit us.
I think the war on drugs is like prohibition. I think it's been ineffective in reducing use but highly effective at increasing deaths and incarcerations. I think we need a rehabilitation-based solution rather than a criminalization-based solution.
As to the war on terror, we have no choice now.
I have to admit that you are naïve about danger. I lost a son to drugs so I now first hand about the perils of drug use. It is not safe in any form. Radical Islam left on it's own to develop weapons and tactics without being afraid of some retaliation, is pretty stupid. If they have to sorry about getting taken out, they're less likely to operate I the clear. They will spend time trying to stay alive vs just time planning ways to kill us. I know what you guys meant, it's just not true.
It started way before 2000. Anybody who thinks it started with Bush is completely wrong. It may have really started with Carter and Iran when we never punished them after they took the hostages.
Im very sorry for the loss of your son. But the current drug laws had no effect in saving your son. That's my point. The war on drugs is a failure.
Only the complete breakdown of our society will be a failure. That's what will happen if legalization occurs. Look at our inner cities and what all the free time from govt support does. Murder, mayhem, drug use, prositiution, need I go on. You get basically govt turning a blind eye to all the drug use going on there and it ahs destroyed the black family. There is no safe amount of drug use but you can have a drink or two without becoming addicted. Not true with the hard core drug use.
Go back and rematch the video. The war on terror has caused terror to increase exponentially. We have no choice but to continue to engage at this point. But here are some facts. Terrorists are mostly poor young men. By bombing the Middle East back to the Stone Age we have exponentially increased the number of poor young men. Religious leaders come into these devastated communities, point their condemning fingers to the west, and offer young men hope of significance. So now it's just a matter of time before a suicide bomber kills hundreds in Time Square on New Years Eve or Mardi Gras or Tourament of Roses parade. And we'll all scream for the government to do something. And Trumps rallies will grow bigger and bigger maybe to the point where the savior of the USFL becomes CIC.
I fully disagree. The impact of keeping drugs illegal and highly regulating the use of other dangerous substances such as alcohol and tobacco has reduced deaths and other negative consequences. There is much data on this regardless of anyone having an opinion and simply stating it is a failure only because it is impossible to fully eliminate it.
All those things you say will happen are already happening. I'm not advocating turning a blind eye. I'm advocating a rehab-based solution.
Compare the supposed success to Portugal which decriminalize use. There's no comparison. Here's a statistic to look up: how many incarcerations are non-violent offenders?