January 07, 2007
What will be the cost of "Peace Now?"
There's a good little essay by Jules Crittenden, Crossroads. It's getting a lot of attention, and you've probably already seen it. We are at a decision point--Pelosi and the appeasers in Congress are demanding we cut and run from Iraq. Well, you already know how I think about those animals, and about the consequences of being unwilling to fight and win the War on Terror. Actually we should label them "Pelosi and the warmongers."
Which is why I liked this thought, on the essay, by Don Surber...
I will add this, the penalty for early withdrawal is cataclysmic. The Fall of Saigon led to 2 million deaths in Cambodia alone. [That's two million people killed by those who now LEAD the Democrat Party. 2 million killed by "antiwar" activists and fake-pacifists.] Stopping short of Baghdad 16 years ago cost a quarter-million lives directly, plus whatever number of deaths they tag on to the Oil for Food scandal. [That's a quarter-million human beings killed by "realists" and blue-blazer Republicans.]Posted by John Weidner at January 7, 2007 08:25 AM | TrackBack
Childish demands for "Peace Now" ignore history and reality and the welfare of the Iraqi people.
And our own soldiers. We could have had Iraq for free in 1991. What's it cost us to return? 3,000 lives? A half-trillion dollars? [And what will it cost us to return in 2013? A bucket of blood, you can bet, in exchange for "Peace Now."]
I agree with the thoughts, except I think "We could have had Iraq for free in 1991" is [i]way[/i] overplaying his hand. That's utter nonsense. I wish we had taken Iraq in 1991, no doubt, but that would hardly have come for "free" - there would have been fighting back to Baghdad, there would have been an insurgency (albeit probably far smaller and less deadly), we would have seen the coalition eroded, we would have spent a tremendous amount of international political capital, at a time when we were trying to negotiate the break-up of the Soviet Union, with who knows what consequences, etc.
In the balance, I would mark the risks cheap, and believe that some day the names Powell and Bush Sr. and Scowcroft will be listed alongside Chamberlain in the book of Tragically Foolish Foreign Policy Makers. But "for free"? That's way overstating the case.
Have you ever considered that one purpose of the conspiracy theories about BushCo et. al. is to avoid any hint of responsibility for these results? If it's all a result of the Zionist Chimpy-Oil Gang, then it's not the fault of people like Senator Kerry who supported the North Vietnamese. Just like if we withdraw from Iraq leading to massive loss of life, it will be the neo-cons' fault for starting it?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 7, 2007 01:55 PMWell I thought that went without saying. Just like the Fall of Saigon wasn't the fault of anyone who protested the Vietnam War.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 7, 2007 02:10 PM
