PDA

View Full Version : Converting neocons on War on Terrr




CJLauderdale4
07-05-2007, 10:40 PM
I was speaking to a neocon today concerning Iraq, and by divine Providence I was able to come up with some pretty decent arguments for our current foreign policy that directly answers the current neocon arguments:

Q: Shouldn't we fight them over there rather than over here? Won't they follow us home?

A: What stops them from coming over here now? In fact, didn't we just thwart plots on Fort Dix and NY's JFK airport? Seems to me we are fighting them over here too. If so, why don't we bring our troops home and secure our borders correctly so that we limit our military theater against the terrorists, and keep them out of the country?

Q: If we leave, aren't we giving the victory to the terrorists and embracing a "cut and run" approach? Shouldn't we be patient and wait for a true victory where the Iraqi government is stable and can defend itself?

A: First of all, we already won. Remember, "Mission Accomplished!" We deposed Saddam, we got rid of the minute WMD we found, and setup a government of elected officials. Done. Why are we still there?? Second, the current administration is building 14 bases in Iraq. Are we ever going to truly "leave"? Won't the so-called "insurgents" just start bombing our bases when we pull out f the streets? Our presence in Saudi Arabia is what initially pissed off Osama Bin Laden, you think the Iraqi's won't be pissed when we stay around forever? If the Iraqi police do not want to protect themselves due to fear for their lives, then there's nothing the American military can do to help them. They must fight for themselves.

If you really want to win the War on Terrrr, then why aren't we going after Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the ones who perpetrated 9/11? Last I heard, they slipped into Pakistan via Tora Bora, never to be heard from again. Why haven't we invaded Pakistan to get him??

Q: So you would just let hundreds of thousands of people die at the hands of genocidal regimes? (Hannity's question)

A: Why do other nations allow Americans to kill over 1 million unborn babies every year? What if they felt that this is genocide, better yet, infanticide, and decided to invade us to end the atrocities? Would you accept this as liberation, or invasion and occupation? What if they began building bases here (Ron's point)? Would you go for that? Of course not! You would fight back to repel them as the enemy!! Why do we think we can do this to other nations? And if you took this argument to the end, we should invade many other nations for their atrocities (Sudan, China, etc.). Is this what you're proposing we do?


These answers (or just parts of them) worked well and at least got my colleague thinking really hard!!

Bradley in DC
07-05-2007, 10:46 PM
Congrats. Thinking is the first step.

CJLauderdale4
07-05-2007, 10:51 PM
I sometimes like to answer their questions and presuppositions with my own question on the issue. It makes them think of the idea as a whole, rather than just right and wrong (because they usually already have their mind trained by the MSM on what to think is right).

Again, no long thoughts on this. It kinda just came out, and there it was.

Just wanted to share in case others here get a chance to discuss with fellow neocons...