Unless I also post some dark thoughts about Iraq, people will think
I'm a full-time (instead of temp) swinish hack. So here goes.
*Must an armed, fanatic minority can successfully impose its will on
a cowed majority?
*Is there anything better than the Bush plan: tough it out
with an average of 2 or 3 of our men murdered every day while we
train the Iraqis to take over their own future as soon as possible?
What the Iraqis will make of it is anyone's guess.
*Will America have the political/societal will to last over the long
haul? Has Binladen read us correctly there?
*Will my fellow liberals prefer to have Bush fail (as Paul Stone
thinks) rather than let Iraqi freedom win? If we do prefer to see
Bush fail, won't his failure be OUR failure? If Bush fails, why do
my fellow liberals think that they live on a special reservation
insulated from all the repercussions of history?
*Ralph Peters talks about a "strategic raid" strategy, punitive
expeditions for specific enemy crimes or attacks, which has a
definite 19th century British imperial feel to it. Is this the best
future strategy? It is not too satisfying as a cure, especially when
you work enemy WMDs into the mix--they nuke NYC so we nuke Tehran?
who'll lose more with that math?
*Will the US eventually have to revert to the fortress America type
isolationism? Vichy Europe is almost gone already. They'll be
majority Moslem within thirty years, assuming they don't have a
thirty years wars type religious civil war. Yet I think they're
more likely to just quietly surrender to the islamofascist
inevitability.
*And by that time, we're likely to be an economic colony of Red
China, courtesy of the globalists.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
