The pressure on President Bush to withdraw from Iraq is mounting. It has become intense enough for him to issue a personal statement from Crawford that he will not be drawing down any troops soon.
We know what the consequences of an American withdrawal would be because we have gruesome experience of what such a withdrawal meant in Indo-China where two and half million people were slaughtered by the Communists thanks to the withdrawal of American troops in 1973 and the abrupt ending of American aid in 1975. Both measures were forced on a reluctant White House by political leftists like Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean.
A pullout in Iraq will mean the slaughter of every Iraqi who has stood up for their freedom in the last several years. And it will mean a bloodbath in America since the terrorists, released from the military pressure that U.S. forces are exerting on them in the Middle East will be free to undertake terrorist missions here.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 12th, 2005 at 10:13 am and is filed under Horowitz Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Edit this entry.
August 12th, 2005 at 10:57 am edit
David:
It is the Left’s abstract “forward movement of history” moment. The Left cares not a wit about the consequences of it ideology implemented in real time, real world circumstances. What matters is the primacy of the pose and the purity of the “idea.”
That is why the people you have cited have uttered little if any protest about Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, a Parisian-educated communist movement they helped to power. The facts do not matter. It is the metaphysical ideal, ironically embraced by people that call themselves “materialists” that counts!
Note how the left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party and all of the interconnected social protest movements and their leaders always prefer to delay and defer rather than confronting here and now any international problem or security matter.
Let somebody else handle it, like the UN, or simply postpone action so that future generations will be saddled with “a beast of a problem.” Example, President Truman blowing the chance to smash North Korea and maybe even Communist China. Fifty plus years later, look at the mess he left us.
Same will happen in Iraq. Before the War, the Left would argue that Saddam was a really bad dude BUT…
Now they argue for a withdrawal based on the idiotic assumption that WE ARE THE CAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE. The consequnces be damned, what matters most to the Left is the erosion of America’s military and global power. If that takes the murder of millions in Iraq by a future Islamist-dominated government, so what!
That’s the Left today, it was the Left yesterday, and it will forever be the essence of the Left. My only regret is that I spent, no make that wasted nearly twenty years of my life in that world of inverted reality.
August 12th, 2005 at 12:54 pm edit
These defeatest fools, (the liberal enablers, the left attackers) are missing an important truth of the Iraqi war: so far, WE ARE WINNING.
In military terms we have the excellant killing ground to decimate our Jihadi enemies in a foreign country with a largely sympathetic population. Apart from the individual tragedies of losing some of our brave heroes, the kill and capture ratios are good and victory is in keeping up the good work.
Kudos to a great military.
Not keen on spending our coin there to rebuild - should be a tax on Iraqi oil, and somehow subsidized by our dubias ‘friends’ the Saudis.
A blight upon Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Dean and the other defeatests.
August 13th, 2005 at 2:19 pm edit
If the Left gets its way with Iraq like it did with Vietnam, Iraq would end up ten times worse than Vietnam and so would the entire region of the Middle East. If U.S. and coalition troops pull out too early, it will give a bad signal to the terrorists and others who want to destablize Iraq and thus creating an Iraqi Civil War.
From there a new dictatorship either controlled by radical Shiite groups that are really on the bankroll by the Mullahs of Iran or former Baathists from Syria might control the new dictatorship. Iran and even Syria might declare themselves nuclear nations. Coups would be started by Islamo-Fascist terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So if we let the Left get its way with Iraq, we won’t just fail in bringing freedom, peace and stability to the people of Iraq, but to also the people of Afghanistan who were once ruled under the iron fist of the Taliban. A brutal oppressive regime that supported and sponsored international terrorism. If we pull out of Iraq, then we might pull out of Afghanistan as well which is what Islamo-Fascist terrorists in the Middle East really want.
I believe this could also resurrect the old Ottoman and Muslim empire provinces of ancient times into one Islamo-Fascist dictatorship. This is the grim future the Left wants. Let’s hope this grim future never happens.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:37 am edit
Such lies are posted here. The 2 million that were murdered after Vietnam ended were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, not as a result of the pullout of Vietnam.
Pulling out too early would de-stabalize Iraq? It’s stable now? Come, get with reality. De-stablizing Iraq is exactly what the US did, so what would be the difference? And now it looks like for all the talk about bringing democracy to Iraq, Iraq will end up being an islamic republic after all, a place where even more terrorists can go to train and learn their craft. And this is due 100% to Bushes idiotic policies.
No, it’s not leftists that are the most dangerous to our security, it is the neo-con republicans and conservatives who more than anything love to kill and destroy anyone that disagrees with them, consequences be damned.