Rebuttal: Why do liberals (er... libertarians?) fear the word WAR?
Published by Luckbox on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10:50 AM.
This quote from BG's last post nearly made me laugh out loud:
Yes, I will agree that if nations continue to support and protect the very terrorists who our trying to kill us that it makes perfect sense to invade that nation and eliminate the very leadership engaging in that activity. You like to call it "alternate means of compliance." The rest of the world calls it "war."
You see, BG doesn't have a problem with using the military to find and kill terrorists, he just doesn't like calling it war. He lives in a pre-9/11 world where war could only be between nations. That's the reason past Administrations didn't take further action against terrorists after the first 4 warnings we received. They were afraid of the word WAR. Instead, they waited. They waited hoping the terrorists would just decide to stop. They waited hoping that arresting a few would discourage further attacks.
They waited until 9/11.
BG believes that all we need to do is have the CIA/FBI find these people, discover what they're planning before they carry it out, convince them to move to an isolated location to avoid collateral damage, and then send in the Navy SEALS. Well, why didn't you just say so?
I especially liked the "Eliminating the ability of these people to continue to organize, recruit or plan for current or future attacks (including ending them, if necessary)." Did you really just replace the word "killing" with the word "ending?"
In an ideal world, that's all we would need. The intelligence would be floating out there and our awesome intelligence gathering organizations would find it. Then they'd covertly send in Jack Bauer to stop the plot before it kills innocent Americans. But how realistic is that, really?
The real way to protect America is to combine intelligence gathering with the military might needed to stop nations from supporting terrorism. These terrorists organizations need protection, they need training grounds, they need funding. These things all come from nations who hate us. Every time we take down a Taliban, the next nation will think twice about giving Osama bin Laden the support he needs to plan the next 9/11. Eventually, they'll have no safe haven. And American will be safer because of it.
*****************
I'm not going to spend much time discussing BG's tangent. BG believes that this president and this administration are more intent on building up unfettered power than they are in protecting America or saving the lives of the American military. He believes they are intent on this despite the fact that this administration will be gone in a year. So what he's arguing is that this president is sacrificing American lives soley to provide power to someone else. Forgive me if I find the argument irrational.
Let's agree that if a state is unwilling to agree to reasonable demands to cease supporting rogue groups like al Qaeda, that it makes perfect sense to ask them to meet our troops on the battlefield to perhaps discuss alternate means of compliance.
Yes, I will agree that if nations continue to support and protect the very terrorists who our trying to kill us that it makes perfect sense to invade that nation and eliminate the very leadership engaging in that activity. You like to call it "alternate means of compliance." The rest of the world calls it "war."
You see, BG doesn't have a problem with using the military to find and kill terrorists, he just doesn't like calling it war. He lives in a pre-9/11 world where war could only be between nations. That's the reason past Administrations didn't take further action against terrorists after the first 4 warnings we received. They were afraid of the word WAR. Instead, they waited. They waited hoping the terrorists would just decide to stop. They waited hoping that arresting a few would discourage further attacks.
They waited until 9/11.
BG believes that all we need to do is have the CIA/FBI find these people, discover what they're planning before they carry it out, convince them to move to an isolated location to avoid collateral damage, and then send in the Navy SEALS. Well, why didn't you just say so?
I especially liked the "Eliminating the ability of these people to continue to organize, recruit or plan for current or future attacks (including ending them, if necessary)." Did you really just replace the word "killing" with the word "ending?"
In an ideal world, that's all we would need. The intelligence would be floating out there and our awesome intelligence gathering organizations would find it. Then they'd covertly send in Jack Bauer to stop the plot before it kills innocent Americans. But how realistic is that, really?
The real way to protect America is to combine intelligence gathering with the military might needed to stop nations from supporting terrorism. These terrorists organizations need protection, they need training grounds, they need funding. These things all come from nations who hate us. Every time we take down a Taliban, the next nation will think twice about giving Osama bin Laden the support he needs to plan the next 9/11. Eventually, they'll have no safe haven. And American will be safer because of it.
*****************
I'm not going to spend much time discussing BG's tangent. BG believes that this president and this administration are more intent on building up unfettered power than they are in protecting America or saving the lives of the American military. He believes they are intent on this despite the fact that this administration will be gone in a year. So what he's arguing is that this president is sacrificing American lives soley to provide power to someone else. Forgive me if I find the argument irrational.
