Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Pull Our Troops Out of Iraq Immediately: What Is The "Intent"?
Let's then allow, if a majority of the Iraqi people desire it, to permit Saddam Hussein return as the ruler of Iraq. I mean, after all, the Left tells us daily that he isn't, and never was, that bad of a guy. He didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, even though Clintonite Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and others, told us time and time again that the world believes that he indeed had them (See Sources below: 1, 2, 3, 4).
I'm sure that once the U.S. presence in the Middle East is gone all types of terrorism will cease. We can negotiate with, and appease terrorists, can't we?
Further, if the ruler of a foreign country decides to massacre hundreds or thousands of his own people, who are we, the U.S., or any other country for that matter, to question that judgment? In retrospect, the fact that Bill Clinton did nothing while Rwandans were slaughtered, was the right (in)action to take, wasn't it?
If Iran wants to enrich uranium they should be allowed to do just that. We don't know for sure that they would use it to develop WMD's. And until Iran uses said weapons, well, we just can't interfere on the basis of intent, right?
Intent is a funny thing. We don't interfere with intent of sexual solicitation of children until the predator has actually committed and completed the sexual act with the minor, do we? There is no legal interference with the intent of a drunken driver of an automobile until the driver actually damages property or injures, maims, or kills another person, do we? Can't we all agree that drunken driving is a victimless crime until the point where person or property is actually, tangibly injured or damaged?
No free country would attempt to interfere with an airline hi-jacking, or interfere with a plan by students to kill their fellow students in a grade or high school while it is still in the plotting and planning stages; a matter of intent, rather than in process, real-time.
The law does not interfere with a planned or plotted attempt of robbery or theft until the illegal act is actually committed or completed, right? So, why should we base enforcement or reaction to any crime when it hasn't actually happened; when it is only at the "intent stage"?
The above is what the Left is saying. There's no hypocrisy in any of the above examples using the logic of the Left. It's all about intent. And if we're going to use intent as the benchmark as the basis for action, reaction, or indifference, then let's bring the troops home today. And while we're at it, we'll have to reverse previously convicted DUI'ers who never injured property or people, child molesters who were convicted only at the "intent stage", and all other people doing time in jail who were convicted on only intent, not the actual committing of a crime.
And when an ally, or any country for that matter, asks for our help, we can base our action, reaction or indifference based on intent. Because until a bomb explodes killing people, or a suicide bomber kills others, or an offender actually commits and completes a crime, or an airliner is hi-jacked in real-time, or until school children are actually dead or injured, why, it is only intent.
And we can't consider the actions of someone suspect based only on intent now, can we, because this is what the Left is telling us.
1: Norman Podhoretz;
3: Brainy Quote;
4: J.R. Whipple
- - -
The Right Place
everyone keeps saying pull the troops out now but nobody thinks of what would happen if we actually did.
i mean people aren't as nice as they think, the terrorists arent going to just give up too if we do. They will most likely take advantage of us and then we'll be sorry we made that mistake.
Hey, nice link location, what happened to it, do tell...
say, did you know "stupider" is not a word? One can say "you are more stupid," or "you are less stupid", but one is never "stupider".
Instead of typing rubbish it would have been nice for you to make a point or two about what you accuse, but you didn't. Is that because you can't argue with facts or turn into a Sissified Little Liberal Troll when faced with the facts?
Have a Marvy day.
I glanced at your blog, you seem to be fairly intelligent so I would ask why you think the war is all about oil, considering oil is poised to leap far above $3/ gallon.
We have lost proud and brave Soldiers. But if you're going to base the success or failure of a war only on the number of U.S. Soldiers killed - then statistically speaking Iraq and Afghanistan is the most successful war the U.S. has ever been involved in.
There is no fuel shortage problem with oil. Huge - fucking massive - new reserves of oil are being discovered every day/week/month.
The fact is, that tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed and/or apprehended.
Your idea of appeasement and running away from conflict is not the way to respond.
Thank you for sharing your comments. My condolences to you and the family of your friend who was killed in Iraq.
Hey, douchebag, what happened to your site, "daviddrake is an ignorant smartass.com"? I sure would love the additional traffic and publicity. Why did you take it off-line? Is it because the wireless connectivity from living in the basement of your mom and dad's house isn't that good?
Let me know, please, "somone with (no) common sense." I'd love to hear from an asshat like you again.
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.