| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Fisk: We Should Not Have Allowed 19 Murderers to Change our World |
| 2004-09-13 |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #22 Mr. Write: don't concentrate too much on the story the press wants you to see. Take, for instance, Saddam's nukes: the press got so involved in the story over whether Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger (or not) they completely forgot to cover the fact that Iraq not only has uranium deposits of its own, but had stockpiles of yellowcake on hand. And was also building delivery vehicles. Not to mention that we discovered, in the aftermath of the Iraq War, an entire network dedicated to building turnkey centrifuge installations for enriching uranium with, with Pakistan and Malaysia in the role of suppliers and Libya and Egypt (!) being the publicly disclosed customers thus far (there are two more, allegedly, "somewhere out there.") Iraq was continuing, against the terms of the cease-fire, work on long-range guided missiles that were of dubious accuracy that would make them useless militarily if loaded with conventional weapons. What do you think he was going to put on them? Furthermore... when Iraq did have an active bomb program, one of their main infrastructure sites was at Al Qa'im. Look at it on a map.... it's right on the Iraqi side of the Syrian border. If you didn't know about this before, you need to ask yourself why. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-09-14 1:18:40 AM |
| #21 We Should Not Have Allowed 19 Murderers to Change our World What should we have allowed their atrocities to do, then? Face the question squarely. Any lack of concerted effort to eliminate all further opportunities for a repeat of 9-11 would merely have been national suicide. While there has been some awkward thrashing about as America's battle plans have been drawn into focus, a total lack of response against the Middle Eastern sponsors of terrorism would have been unthinkable. Saddam may have been low-hanging fruit, but picking him off of his perch has sent an unmistakable message to all the other regional tyrants. Since the invasion of Iraq, there has been more progress towards representative government and the ending of human rights abuses in the Middle East than in the entire preceding CENTURY. We have not allowed 19 murderers to change our world. We are changing that part of the world which bred up those 19 barbaric murderers. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-14 12:33:41 AM |
| #20 "We're all in this thing together, right?" Yes, indeed we are. Please notify the LLL. When you've gotten them on-board, come back and tell us about it. I'd LOVE to see a Dhimmicrap Party which was somewhere to the right of Trotsky. That would be a refreshing change. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-14 12:15:01 AM |
| #19 Hey, anytime, .com. We're all in this thing together, right? Frank: No pantywaist here. (Not that that has anything to do with what we're discussing.) Capitulation, self-doubt and waffling seems to be your style. Should another attack by Islamists occur on American soil, expect an extreme over-reaction. Until then, consider this Afghanistan and Iraq ops as self-restraint. Next time it gets medieval, and your handwringing will be met with little patience. Yep. And that's when it will finally be called Nazism. Today, the term would be a wild exaggeration. What you're talking about is naked aggression, naked rage. Think: when you make decisions out of anger, do they tend to be good ones or bad ones? Do you profit from your rage, or does it profit from you? REASONED response. That is the key. I believe history will judge us harshly for the decision to go after Saddam at that precise moment. The passage of time will prove one of us right. True German Ally: That's a good argument. But how do you KNOW that what we're acting on, post-9/11, isn't just paranoia? It's entirely possible for a whole nation to be paranoid and rush to war. Certainly, once the shooting war starts everyone wants to support the troops. That's why it's imperative that the shooting never start unless, and until, the case for war is ironclad. Nuclear attacks (or just a plane flying into a reactor) are a real threat. They want to do it, they probably can do it soon, and when they are ready they will do it. Saddam had no nukes, and wasn't close to getting one. Whoops! We goofed. Oh well, what the hell, we're there already. Let's set up some bases. C'mon, everyone overstated the threat of al Qaeda post-9/11. They had an A-team, and then they had a guy with a bomb in his shoe. After that, they were forced to operate in other countries because our security was justifiably tight. There is no "War on Terrorism." There is a guy we didn't catch and no longer talk about. And a bunch of henchmen rounded up, and more still out there. There's also a country we liberated, and another one we... well, you know. Guys, just CONSIDER the possibility that there may be another valid viewpoint. |
| Posted by: Mister Write 2004-09-13 11:57:02 PM |
| #18 Mister Write, I disagree. Had 9/11 been the isolated work of some loonies, then maybe. It was not. And 9/11 serves as a perpetual warning that a nation not aware of threatening dangers can be hit hard. Nuclear attacks (or just a plane flying into a reactor) are a real threat. They want to do it, they probably can do it soon, and when they are ready they will do it. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-09-13 10:22:18 PM |
| #17 Oops, Frank's too fast for me. #16 is directed to #14. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-13 10:18:42 PM |
| #16 Of course you do. Excellent analysis and a perfect fit with your other comments. You have the situation down pat. We can all log off and leave the fate of civilization in your capable hands. Whew! Lol! And I was actually worried for awhile there. Thx! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-13 10:17:32 PM |
| #15 War fever and the American drive for vengeance have done us a disservice. Bzzzzzzt - wrong answer. Capitulation, self-doubt and waffling seems to be your style. Should another attack by Islamists occur on American soil, expect an extreme over-reaction. Until then, consider this Afghanistan and Iraq ops as self-restraint. Next time it gets medieval, and your handwringing will be met with little patience. THIS is why it's called Rantburg. Enter carefully, pantywaist |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-13 10:17:23 PM |
| #14 Actually, I think Fisk makes a very good point. We DID overreact to 9/11. All that rage and fear, and over what? One very well funded and capable terrorist, who got lucky and landed a punch on the nose of the most powerful nation on earth. A couple of hundred guys who have their act together, militarily speaking, have now been running us around for three years. We should have reached out with one thumb and crushed bin Laden and his Taliban backers, and then kept right on trucking. No reason to elevate the level of fear in the nation, or to go off half-cocked in Iraq. War fever and the American drive for vengeance have done us a disservice. Better get ready for the draft, 'cause it's coming after November. No exemptions this time. |
| Posted by: Mister Write 2004-09-13 10:11:32 PM |
| #13 He's also right in that we should have changed our world long before 19 murderers had any input. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-09-13 5:29:45 PM |
| #12 I think Robert Fisk has a point there. I think Fisk shouldn't have let 9/11 stop him from venturing into Muslim territory for additional beatings from disgruntled Muslims. Writing from London using newswire stories as background doesn't really suit him. No - he really needs to be back on the ground soaking up punches from his Muslim friends. These beatings are being administered out of love, not out of anger. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-13 2:45:54 PM |
| #11 Frank, you can send that one straight to Webster's (or did you get it from Webster's?) |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-09-13 1:20:12 PM |
| #10 Does he comb his hair over that lobotomy scar? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-13 11:18:53 AM |
| #9 Robert Fisk - source of unending articles of self-loathing and worship of 7th century societies. Sentence-by-sentence deconstruction and ridicule is name after his unintentionally humorous works being deconstructed |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-13 11:10:28 AM |
| #8 I thought "fisk" was a verb. There's really a guy named Fisk? |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-09-13 11:08:27 AM |
| #7 Now it's just another opinion among millions. And a totally worthless one at that. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-13 11:03:58 AM |
| #6 Get your ass over to Iraq, Fiskie. I'm sure there's plenty of Iraqis who'd welcome the chance to kick your sorry ass. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-09-13 10:49:39 AM |
| #5 Another dumbass homesick refugee from the past. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-13 10:43:27 AM |
| #4 where's a band of disgruntled afghanis when you need em? Fisk needs another guilt-beating to cheer him up |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-13 10:41:38 AM |
| #3 I don't remember them asking for Fisk's permission. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-09-13 10:33:23 AM |
| #2 Fisk..too bad for him they invented the Internet. Now his opinion is just that, opinion. Back in the days of old media - his word's carried more weight. Now it's just another opinion among millions. Hey Fisky, what's that you say? Blah.blah blah. So much reading material, so little time. |
| Posted by: B 2004-09-13 10:28:51 AM |
| #1 Then you won't let my one boot in your ass change your world either, retard. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2004-09-13 10:08:12 AM |