Hercules, I think you made a few good points and will address them. But, right off the bat, several contradictions are striking.
Quote:
|
If you actually did a bit of research...You're a dreamer...I suggest you talk about subjects you've done a little more homework on...Right now, you're speaking from point of view that is idealistic, but not based in reality...Right now, you're just repeating the Limbaughs and Coulters who have nothing to say other than warmongering...Tell me then...Do you think we'd let it go by and sit there idly?
|
So, my first question is if you believe all these things about me, that I am an ignorant idealist, than why do you want to discuss the issues with me? Why would you ask my opinions about the issue?
Quote:
|
They do not like the Iranian leadership, and want to end the religious rule -- they want freedom, and they want democracy...But it is something that has to be SEIZED, not GIVEN. Iranians will never accept a government handed to them by the US if we remove their leadership.
|
I am well aware of the internal opposition to the iranian regime and our covert support of them. There are many iranians working with us to bring democracy to their country, seizing democracy as you say. There is no reason we can't help them. Further, your point that they MUST seize it rather than having it handed to them, while valid, is directly questioned by numerous examples of cultures conquering others and then being willingly assimilated (Greek, Roman, etc), even in the case of democracies, like Germany and Japan for instance.
As far as the difficulty of occupying large areas of hostile territory, I agree the British made it clear that this is not only undesirable but impossible, no matter the military mismatch. I was against long term occupation and democratization of iraq. I thought we should keep our bases, let them work it out for themselves, and destroy anything that emerges that we consider a threat. I thought we should encourage them to civil war and killing each other, and focus on having them fight each other, keeping them poor, and essentially harmless. This is because I am not sure they are culturally capable of democracy, given the dominance of the evil ideology of islam and its incompatibility with freedom and peace.
But, I do feel the goal of a democratic, free, peaceful iraq is worthwhile and would represent a tremendous victory in the war on islamofascism. It amounts to convincing the enemy we are right and they should adopt our culture, just as Japan and Germany were convinced. This is the ultimate victory, a McDonalds on every muslim corner. So, I am willing to give the effort my full support once. If iraq fails, then I advocate nothing but destruction for the muslim countries that fund/assist terrorism. If and when they completely and utterly surrender, we could try and help them again.
Quote:
|
Do you think we'd let it go by and sit there idly?
|
Its not a valid comparison. You are speaking as if the antagonism is one-way or recent, and it is not. This is something that has been going on since muhammed started rampaging around to conquer and convert people to his insane religion. Its a totally different situation. We wouldn't be exerting so much force in the areas of the world they have already conquered if they didn't keep trying to wage their stupid jihad.