Iraq and the War on Terrorism
The number one campaign issue in the presidential campaign is Iraq and the war on terrorism. The key difference between the political parties and liberals and conservatives today is whether the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror or whether they are two separate issues.
Liberals in this country claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a direct supporter of Al Qaeda and therefore President Bush's decision to go into Iraq was a distraction at best. They think that since only Al Qaeda attacked us that we should only attack Al Qaeda. Now I, and many other conservatives, think that Iraq was connected to and supported Al Qaeda (read this, to learn about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda and if you are more interested, read this book). However, that is not central to the position of many conservatives about terrorism. Conservatives think that we must fight all terrorism, no matter what form it comes in and that not only do we have to confront terrorists groups with force, but we must also use military force against state sponsors of terrorism. These two positions tell you all you need to know about the differences between the political parties when it comes to terrorism.
Before engaging going further in this debate some definitions are in order. A terrorist is, by definition, someone who employs violence as a political weapon. By this definition, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist himself, at least as it applies to the treatment of his own countrymen. It is unchallenged that he used chemical weapons to gas the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq, continuously used his secret police forces to spy, torture, and kill Iraqis that did not adhere to his political power, and, unprovoked, invaded Kuwait. These are the actions of someone who uses terror to advance political goals.
Furthermore, Iraq had continuously defied the United Nations, by refusing to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq ignored or flaunted no less than 18 United Nations security council resolutions and still that international body refused to do anything about it. So Bush was faced with a choice. He could have continued on same path that President Clinton rode, by continuing to attempt to contain Iraq through sanctions and UN resolutions. However, he chose to start enforcing the UN resolutions. His thinking was that what good are resolutions if you don't enforce them and can we take the chance, after September 11th, that Saddam, who used chemical weapons on his own people, would not be a threat to the American people? So after Resolution 1441 was passed (you can read the resolution here) and Saddam ignored it, President Bush decided to use force to remove him.
The reaction from the worldwide political left, and the media, was astonishing to me. They flat out opposed liberating over 20 million people from a brutal dictator who had used terror and chemical weapons on his own people, who invaded Kuwait, and who ignored the Untied Nations, their crown jewel of international organizations, for years. Why was that? I don't know exactly, but I'm sure that the left's continuous hesitance to use force and the fact the Saddam was paying off high ranking UN, French, and Russian officials through the oil-for-food program (more information found here, here, and here) were major reasons. After the debate over the past three years on Iraq and terrorism I have come to the conclusion that liberals and the majority of the Democratic party here in America simply do not want to confront the threats of today's world.
Everyone in America knows George Bush's policy on terrorism: kill or capture them if you can and confront, with military force, state sponsors of terrorism. Can anyone tell me John Kerry's position on Iraq and the war on terrorism? He voted for the authorization to go to war, but now says that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. He voted to fund the cost of the Iraq war before he voted against it. Eight years ago he was against the death penalty for terrorists, now he is for it. He has voted to cut or eliminate dozens of weapons systems that are now fighting the war on terrorism. I could go on and on. Can you trust someone that simply can't make up his mind about how to best protect the American people?
It's simple. If you are a liberal you want to figure out why these terrorists hate us, but don't want to use any force against them. If you are a conservative you want to kill the terrorists first and then figure out why they hated us.
On a side note, you might have seen Michael Moore debate Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor. Obviously, I disagree with Michael Moore on almost everything, but I particularly take issue with his argument on The O'Reilly Factor that everyone who supports the war in Iraq, and isn't there himself, is a hypocrite. Everyone in our Armed Forces is a volunteer. No one, especially not President Bush, ordered them into the military. They are there because they want to serve their country, not because someone forced them to serve in Iraq. I think that is very important to keep that in mind during this debate.
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
Liberals in this country claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a direct supporter of Al Qaeda and therefore President Bush's decision to go into Iraq was a distraction at best. They think that since only Al Qaeda attacked us that we should only attack Al Qaeda. Now I, and many other conservatives, think that Iraq was connected to and supported Al Qaeda (read this, to learn about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda and if you are more interested, read this book). However, that is not central to the position of many conservatives about terrorism. Conservatives think that we must fight all terrorism, no matter what form it comes in and that not only do we have to confront terrorists groups with force, but we must also use military force against state sponsors of terrorism. These two positions tell you all you need to know about the differences between the political parties when it comes to terrorism.
Before engaging going further in this debate some definitions are in order. A terrorist is, by definition, someone who employs violence as a political weapon. By this definition, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist himself, at least as it applies to the treatment of his own countrymen. It is unchallenged that he used chemical weapons to gas the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq, continuously used his secret police forces to spy, torture, and kill Iraqis that did not adhere to his political power, and, unprovoked, invaded Kuwait. These are the actions of someone who uses terror to advance political goals.
Furthermore, Iraq had continuously defied the United Nations, by refusing to come clean on its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq ignored or flaunted no less than 18 United Nations security council resolutions and still that international body refused to do anything about it. So Bush was faced with a choice. He could have continued on same path that President Clinton rode, by continuing to attempt to contain Iraq through sanctions and UN resolutions. However, he chose to start enforcing the UN resolutions. His thinking was that what good are resolutions if you don't enforce them and can we take the chance, after September 11th, that Saddam, who used chemical weapons on his own people, would not be a threat to the American people? So after Resolution 1441 was passed (you can read the resolution here) and Saddam ignored it, President Bush decided to use force to remove him.
The reaction from the worldwide political left, and the media, was astonishing to me. They flat out opposed liberating over 20 million people from a brutal dictator who had used terror and chemical weapons on his own people, who invaded Kuwait, and who ignored the Untied Nations, their crown jewel of international organizations, for years. Why was that? I don't know exactly, but I'm sure that the left's continuous hesitance to use force and the fact the Saddam was paying off high ranking UN, French, and Russian officials through the oil-for-food program (more information found here, here, and here) were major reasons. After the debate over the past three years on Iraq and terrorism I have come to the conclusion that liberals and the majority of the Democratic party here in America simply do not want to confront the threats of today's world.
Everyone in America knows George Bush's policy on terrorism: kill or capture them if you can and confront, with military force, state sponsors of terrorism. Can anyone tell me John Kerry's position on Iraq and the war on terrorism? He voted for the authorization to go to war, but now says that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. He voted to fund the cost of the Iraq war before he voted against it. Eight years ago he was against the death penalty for terrorists, now he is for it. He has voted to cut or eliminate dozens of weapons systems that are now fighting the war on terrorism. I could go on and on. Can you trust someone that simply can't make up his mind about how to best protect the American people?
It's simple. If you are a liberal you want to figure out why these terrorists hate us, but don't want to use any force against them. If you are a conservative you want to kill the terrorists first and then figure out why they hated us.
On a side note, you might have seen Michael Moore debate Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor. Obviously, I disagree with Michael Moore on almost everything, but I particularly take issue with his argument on The O'Reilly Factor that everyone who supports the war in Iraq, and isn't there himself, is a hypocrite. Everyone in our Armed Forces is a volunteer. No one, especially not President Bush, ordered them into the military. They are there because they want to serve their country, not because someone forced them to serve in Iraq. I think that is very important to keep that in mind during this debate.
Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com
~ The Conservative Guy
posted by The Conservative Guy at
10:37 PM
3 Comments:
okay, let me offer up the opinion of a Canadian Conservative. You first must understand the Canadian political spectrum. Take the American spectrum of right and left and shift everything to the right by one notch. Basically Canadian Conservatives are similar to right wing americans. That being said, let me get to my point. Up here we are bombarded (no pun intendid) with american viewpoints and news, so i know all of the arguments well.
The first problem i came across was your definition of a terrorist. Actually a terrorist is someone who uses terror to bring about change within his favor, it does not have to be political. The September 11th attacks were NOT political. They were attacks against the social system of The West as extremist muslims see it. Secondly the thing that kinda bugged me about your article is the fact that you assume (and let me just play devils advocate here) that everyone in the world should follow what the UN says. Who says that "iraq" for instance should follow the UN. Were they apart of the UN? I could understand the UN's view on iraq if Iraq was actually part of the UN to begin with. Thirdly the american viewpoint that only they should have "The Bomb" is kind of ignorant don't you think. North Korea has the right to have the bomb if they develop it themselves. For instance would Canada be a threat if we decieded to build nuclear arms or WMD's as the media has made them out to be. Just because North Korea has a dictaor does not mean he will attack the USA. look at the country of Cuba. Heck it should be downright embarrasing that the only communist country, and it has a dictator, is only miles of the coast of the very country that opposes everything that it stands for. I sense another coldwar begining and will go almost as far as to call the american government terrorists. By your definition they are. They keep the american population undercontrol through fear, this leads to prolonged control. But hey what do i know im only 18, and i wasn't around while Hitler used the same tactics. Just instead of Jews, now its the faceless Terrorist that you hunt
By
That Canadian Guy, at 10:57 PM
Conservatives use the "War on Terror" phrase because we believe that America is at war, not only with Al Qaeda, but with all the terrorist worldwide terrorist entities and their supporters, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the nations of Syria and Iran. You say these entities did not attack us. I, and history, disagree. In 1996 Hezbollah killed 19 U.S. servicemen at Khobar Towers and, of course, in 1979 Iran held hostage dozens of America diplomats for 444 days. The U.S. Cole bombings, the 1986 Libyan disco bombing, the first World Trade Center attack are all terrorist attacks against the United States by various different groups. All Muslim terror states and organizations have already decided to go to war with America. The decision we face is whether or not we are going to fight or surrender. How do you talk and negotiate with people who will except nothing less than either your death or your religious conversion? You can try to understand them all you like, but unless you are willing to convert to Islam all the understanding the world won't matter.
By
The Conservative Guy, at 5:56 PM
Let me also address your moral equivalence of so called American acts of terrorism (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima (not Tokyo), Vietnam, etc.). You are quick to point out America's sins, but never the reason for them. All the instances you cited were American responses to being brought into a war by the other party. For instance Dresden never would have happened if Hitler and the Japanese empire sought to dominate the world. In those instances, and almost all others America simply acted in such a way to end the war as quickly as possible. Ask yourself how many more Jews would have died, if Hitler was still in power for a year longer or how many America soldiers and Japanese civilians would have died if America had to invade the islands of Japan?
In addition, you sarcastically say not talking to our enemies has worked wonders in Cuba. So I ask, how did talking to Hitler work out for Neville Chamberlain and Western Europe? How has talking to Hamas and Hezbollah worked out for Israel? Not very well. Negotiating with someone, legitimizes them and strengthens their hold on power and people. Do you think that by negotiating with Castro he will suddenly resign, call for elections, and set his political prisoners free? Of course not. Again, you can't negotiate with someone who is intractable in their positions.
By
The Conservative Guy, at 6:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home