Text 23197, 61 rader
Skriven 2006-10-01 10:33:22 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Fundamental Differences
===============================
To say that there are partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans
about the handling of the war on terrorism is a huge understatement.  Don't
misunderstand, because I think partisanship is a good thing.  The schism,
however, is far more than just standard party partisanship.

It is evidence of a fundamental difference in approach that covers not the
military aspects but the approach to governing, law, and a number of other
areas.

Conservatives and Republicans, by and large, approach the issue as a war
problem.  The United States was a victim of an unprovoked sneak attack much the
same as we were at Pearl Harbor in 1941.  In fact, more people died in the
attack on the World Trade Center than at Pearl Harbor. Despite the similarities
between those two attacks, they are much different for one simple reason.  The
Japanese were a uniformed military force, that because of bad timing by their
ambassador in Washington, perpetrated a sneak attack instead of attacking after
a declaration of war.  The WTC attack was carried out by men whose only
unifying connection was hatred of the US and the fact that they were Muslims.
They bore no allegiance to a specific sovereign state, nor did they were
uniforms.  However, we know that certain sovereign states sponsor terrorists,
and did indeed sponsor these.  Conservatives prefer to take the fight to the
enemy, wherever he may be found, rather than wait for him to attack us on our
home ground.

Liberals and Democrats, for the most part, treat the entire issue as a law
enforcement problem.  They voted this week on bills in the House and Senate
dealing with how to handle, and prosecute, captured terrorists. 3/4 of the
House Dems voted against the bill, while 2/3 of the Senate Dems voted against
it.  It is notable that in nearly every case where a Democrat voted FOR the
bill, that member is dealing with a tough, close race for reelection.  It is
reasonable to say that they do not wish to appear soft on terrorism in such a
close race.

As has been pointed out by many pundits on the Sunday news magazine shows, most
people do not want to be fighting in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). 
That's not too surprising, really, because I don't know anybody who is happy
about being at war with anybody.  But the people also know that it is better to
fight the terrorists overseas at the source of their support, and they support
the troops for the most part.  It is also of note that despite the casualties
and the hardships on families who have deployed troops, airmen, and sailors,
there are no shortages of volunteers for Army or Navy or Marines.  Most of the
troops who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are willing to reenlist and go
back for a second and even third tour if they haven't already done so. They
understand the necessity of what they are engaged in.

The bottom line in all of this is that whether or not we wish to be involved in
this, it has been forced on us by fanatical muslim terrorists, fueled by a
centuries old hatred of anything non-muslim. The muslim community at large has
done little or nothing to stop the fanatics, so that task has fallen to the
United States and our allies, both western and Islamic.  I believe
conservatives are fundamentally better equipped by temper and experience to
prosecute and win this struggle than liberals.  It will not be an easy
struggle, and it will require doing some things on the home front that will
adversely affect our personal liberties to some extent.  If we don't do these
things, we will lose, and this country will become no better than a 3rd world,
balkanized mess.  We haven't endured, and suffered, and sacrificed for the last
225 plus years to end on a whimper, cowering from a bunch of unwashed religious
fanatics whose idea of paradise is blowing up a bunch of women and children.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)