Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

irateplatypus · 07-30-2007, 07:20 PM

i've got a 4th though it's tenuously related to your 1st.

4) recognition of the failure of cold war diplomacy and dangers it created
think back to the 2000 election... i'm sure you'll remember then-Governor Bush making numerous stands against "nation building". those statements were intended to distance himself from the stalling progress in the balkan occupations. we can plainly see that the President has radically altered (that is to say... reversed) his policy after the undercurrent of fundamental islam finally made good on its decades of threats. It had ceased to be a backwater mid-east concern.

the cold war realpolitik of propping up middle-east dictatorships to match the similarly cruel regimes taking orders from moscow had radicalized segments of islamic societies. the iraq invasion was both a practical response to perceived WMD threat (as well as a number of other grievances spelled out in congressional and UN resolutions) as well as a recognition that a mid-east ruled by totalitarian regimes (islamic or secular) would continue to breed hatred towards the west and an unending stream of threats. the current situation was judged to be neither stable nor acceptable to US security.

i say that we're there because creating a tolerant islamic democracy in the region was (and is) seen to be the only way to cut al qaeda and similar organizations at their roots. the President could have sent a few cruise missiles into training camps, declared victory, and leaned on the strong economy to a happy finish. instead, is taking boldly and costly steps to irradicate the threat rather than defer or appease it. he is relying on the premise that a pluralistic democracy will lead to increased prosperity and removal of the conditions that make terrorism an attractive option.

i don't buy the cynical motivations most of you ascribe to the President. he may be misguided in his strategy's appeal in foreign lands, he may have underestimated its cost, he most certainly has difficulty in communicating his vision... but he is nothing if not an idealist. the man believes in western democracy and is convinced (right or wrong) that, given a fair chance, it will prevail against the totalitarianism offered by both the secular-strongmen and radical islamists with which it competes.

07-30-2007, 07:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i've got a 4th though it's tenuously related to your 1st. 4) recognition of the failure of cold war diplomacy and dangers it created think back to the 2000 election... i'm sure you'll remember then-Governor Bush making numerous stands against "nation building". those statements were intended to distance himself from the stalling progress in the balkan occupations. we can plainly see that the President has radically altered (that is to say... reversed) his policy after the undercurrent of fundamental islam finally made good on its decades of threats. It had ceased to be a backwater mid-east concern. the cold war realpolitik of propping up middle-east dictatorships to match the similarly cruel regimes taking orders from moscow had radicalized segments of islamic societies. the iraq invasion was both a practical response to perceived WMD threat (as well as a number of other grievances spelled out in congressional and UN resolutions) as well as a recognition that a mid-east ruled by totalitarian regimes (islamic or secular) would continue to breed hatred towards the west and an unending stream of threats. the current situation was judged to be neither stable nor acceptable to US security. i say that we're there because creating a tolerant islamic democracy in the region was (and is) seen to be the only way to cut al qaeda and similar organizations at their roots. the President could have sent a few cruise missiles into training camps, declared victory, and leaned on the strong economy to a happy finish. instead, is taking boldly and costly steps to irradicate the threat rather than defer or appease it. he is relying on the premise that a pluralistic democracy will lead to increased prosperity and removal of the conditions that make terrorism an attractive option. i don't buy the cynical motivations most of you ascribe to the President. he may be misguided in his strategy's appeal in foreign lands, he may have underestimated its cost, he most certainly has difficulty in communicating his vision... but he is nothing if not an idealist. the man believes in western democracy and is convinced (right or wrong) that, given a fair chance, it will prevail against the totalitarianism offered by both the secular-strongmen and radical islamists with which it competes. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill