About Me

Name: Mike
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Bush Doctrine on Target

http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/

Capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were primarily responsible for financing the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Other than training the hijackers, they had little to do with the actual attack on 9/11. Today, Osama is either dead or incapacitated.

The real culprits of 9/11 were the same crowd who tried to blow up the WTO in 1993, attempted to assassinate the pope and stage airplane hijackings from the Philippines in January 1995, and masterminded the Oklahoma City bombing in April of that year. The leaders of this gang of thugs were Ramsey Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, both with ties to Iraq and possibly receiving financial aid from bin Laden and his family. This is also corroborated by bin Laden's own statement in 2001 that those responsible for 9/11 acted as free independent agents.

The administration of George W. Bush did not want to implicate Iraq because that would have shown how stupid it really was to attack Saddam's forces after the Kuwait invasion in 1991. Still, there remains a clear trail of blood leading out of Iraq between 1991 and 2001.

America has clearly stopped terrorism in its tracks. All that is left to do now is orderly withdrawals of US and NATO forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Afghan War Policy Makes Sense So Far

http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/

Americans are sick and tired of nation building which is just a recipe for more big government. President Obama acts wisely in resisting the tempting pleas of the military brass for higher troop levels. The goal in Afghanistan should not be to remake a small nation into a democracy like us. The Afghans have clearly demonstrated that they do not want a society based upon free elections, even though we Americans may think that we know what is best for them.

As in Iraq, the best course to follow is to bring about an orderly exit of American and NATO forces as soon as possible through negotiating with the Taliban and other resistance forces, while avoiding a bloodbath. Karzai will have to go. It is just a question of how long he has to act as puppet.

Afghanistan was not the good, necessary war any more than Iraq was the bad war of choice. Saddam's was by far a worse dictatorship than that of the Taliban. Either way, Muslims do not believe in democracy. They believe in total submission to Allah. That is why their women cover their heads in public, and not because of a paternalistic, male dominated society.

Obama, being a Christian brought up in the Muslim tradition, is uniquely qualified to act as peacemaker with respect to Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. The key to peace is that we show mutual respect for each other's civilizations and cultures.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Was W More of a Liability?

http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/

Historians are now beginning to reexamine the role of Sir Winston Churchill in taking down the British Empire. While none of us can say for sure what effect the Bush presidencies have or will have on America, it is worthwhile to look at the track record.

George H. W. Bush by all accounts got America into the first Gulf War over what was essentially a disputed piece of real estate known as Kuwait, and over the alleged rape of Kuwaiti women by Iraqi men. While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a mean, oppressive dictator who used poison gas against the Kurds and his enemies in Iran, and who quelled public dissent through torture and assassinations, was there really a valid reason to send troops to fight against Iraq in 1990-1991?

Before terrorism became a commonplace, household word, America had the dubious luxury to defend the ideals of freedom throughout the world using our military might. This essentially is what got us bogged down in an unwinnable war in Vietnam, although there was never any serious threat of the war spilling over onto American soil. Today, America no longer has that luxury to go to war on behalf of Israel and other client states. The costs are just too great.

Today, the terms "necessary" and "discretionary" as applied to wars have become all but obsolete, and we should stop using them. War is always a losing proposition. There are times when a nation must take defensive action in self-defense, or in defense of others against an aggressor. However, the decision to go to war is never properly made as something necessary in the sense of being determined by evolution. Man always has a choice, and our leaders must take full responsibility when they commit our boys and girls to fight overseas. Likewise, wars are never discretionary in the sense that one can make a decision based upon a cost-benefit analysis. Those who start wars as a matter of personal discretion should be held fully accountable for all losses sustained on both sides.

So, the question is, did George W. Bush's term of office, in which we went to war full scale to topple Saddam, bring about better or worse results overall for America? This question is separate from whether voters did the right thing in electing President Bush because of his pro-life commitment.

We have fought long enough. It is time to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »