Wednesday, May 16, 2007

fighting a war or occupying a country... ? there's a distinction y'know...

A line from a reader of the link in my previous post:
Once again it's not patriotic to leave our soldiers in Iraq to fight and die for a Shiite theocracy.
... which pretty much is what it all boils down to.

So here's what's going to have to happen when all is said & done:

We "win" only if we get out now, let an inevitable Shiite theocracy take hold, wait another 25 years until the next generation of religiously repressed Iraqis begin to rebel (as they are beguiled by American and western European programming showing how better life could be), while not being made to harbor ongoing resentments of an occupying force that's been gone for 25 years, diplomaticaly encourage reforms with carrots and not sticks -- and Behold! Democracy in Iraq!

Hell! It was working in Iran until Dubya showed up.

Look at Vietnam. Not a democracy as yet, but have you noticed? They miss us and want us all to come visit.

Is there a better way? I think not.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I see you getting exasperated, and I cannot blame you. Believe me, the only people who want to see this war continue are True Believers (and there are not as many as you think) and the Democratic Leadership. Plenty of Reps would love to see the Dems flex their muscle and force W's hand, either because they know the war is a fiasco, they want the Dems to own it, or both.

But you opined that keeping this wound open and festering is how the Democrats will keep their majority and strengthen their position for '08, and I agree, that is what they are doing.

I see the Dem's abdication on Feingold to be a tacit approval of the ongoing killing, just so they can have a campaign. The soldiers are dying for a GOP mistake, but they are also dying for a Democratic sound-bite. Why aren't the true believers calling these Dems to task for their role in the rising body count? (I know you are doing your part, G). Why?

(sound of crickets chirping)