Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been bitching about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.

This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in that country, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own asses. At least this was my line of thinking for the last few months. That is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.

I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here is a list of things that makes the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.



Here is a list of things that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.

1. Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.

2. Fear of a WMD program

3. Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions

4. Oil

5. Connections to terrorism

6. The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.

7. Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMD. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped in coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy son of a bitch.

8. Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US. So I don’t get ragged on for that statement, I will site my source.

Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.

I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMD weren’t hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because it was only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.

*************************

People seem to think that intervention in Sudan will be a breeze. Well let me wake you up to reality…the Sudan is worse off now (in terms of violence) than Iraq was prior to invasion.

Liberals complain that Iraq is a civil war – that it is their fight and we should get out of it. Well what the hell do you think Darfur is? If we were to intervene now, we would be stuck in the middle of a civil war from day one.

One of two outcomes is possible by US intervention: hell and nothing.

1. We will go in there, get our hands very dirty, and probably piss off a lot of people in the process.

2. We will go in there, stand on the side while people kill one another, solve nothing, and waste resources.

These people are even less united than Iraqis. The country is split among Christians, indigenous beliefs, and Islam. However, and just as importantly, there is also a mix of blacks (52%) and Arabs (39%). FYI, Arabs hate blacks. Ok, that is a generalization, but that region of the world isn’t exactly enlightened, and racism is definitely prevalent there.

My advice:

If America needs to intervene anywhere militarily, it is Iran. The Sudan should be the last thing on our minds right now. After all, there are plenty of people dying all over the world, why should we choose the Sudan as our place to intervene?

If you didn't catch that, I am mocking the Liberal/Democratic talking points on Iraq. However, I think this point is actually valid here.

Intervening in the Sudan now would be like intervening in Spain during WWII. Ok, it is bad, that is true, but we have more pressing matters right now.

In the end, it seems like Democrats don't care as much about America being the world's police as they like to claim.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
3 Comments:
Blogger Democrat said...
Unbelievable. No other word can describe it.

Democrat

Hey, this is Democrat. I decided to create a new name/blog. I probably won't be using the "Democrat" name anymore, so get used to this one.

Feel free to comment on my blog, too. I will try and keep it as updated, if not more so, than this one.

Proletariat

No democrat in congress has suggested that the us intervene militarly, All we want to do is have support monetarily, The largest bill i saw was for 70 million, a lot of money, but small compared to 400 billion. There also bills requiring american companies doing business with the jalalweed to divest themselves, they call for them to monetarily support the U.N troops. These are house resolutions regarding the darfur region. Let me know which states that we should send in United States Military forces. Or if there is on i miss H.R. 1424, H.R. 3127, H.R 723, H.R. 4939, H.R. 5522, H.R. 992, S. 495, s. 1462, S. 559, and S. 383
Which democrat politician said we should US TROOPS to the darfur, I have only heard they saying we should financially support the african UN troops

Links to this post:
Create a Link