Thursday, June 30, 2005
Iranian Terrorist-President
So, let me get this straight, the newly "elected" president of Iran was a key figure in the infamous Hostage situation over 25 years ago.
So, I was surprised today when I had to justify to someone why the United States is involved in the Middle East.
Well, I figure, we can do one of two things:
1. We can remove/bring back all of our troops, then we will have them here in the States to deploy when our enemies attack us. (read: reactive)
2. We can fight our enemies in their country, destroying their cities, and keep them busy so they will be less-able to attack the United States. (read: proactive)
I don't know about you, but I choose #2. To me, the "war" on terror is like the "war" on drugs; it is a never-ending war that we must diligently fight as a pre-emptive national security measure. I am not willing to give up on the war on drugs because it is expensive and because people get killed; similarly, I refuse to give up on the war on terror, even though it is expensive and people get killed.
The more we fight narco-terrorists, destroy drug producing regions and fight the problem at the source before drugs get into the USA, the safer we are as law abiding citizens.
The more we fight ethno-terrorists, destroy terror cells and fight the enemy at the source before it gets to the USA, the safer we are as citizens.
So, when I remind people that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA, that Iran has a terrorist as its president, that Syria (and probably Pakistan) are pouring terrorists into Iraq to fight the USA, the more I ask, "Why not be in the Middle East?"
So, I was surprised today when I had to justify to someone why the United States is involved in the Middle East.
Well, I figure, we can do one of two things:
1. We can remove/bring back all of our troops, then we will have them here in the States to deploy when our enemies attack us. (read: reactive)
2. We can fight our enemies in their country, destroying their cities, and keep them busy so they will be less-able to attack the United States. (read: proactive)
I don't know about you, but I choose #2. To me, the "war" on terror is like the "war" on drugs; it is a never-ending war that we must diligently fight as a pre-emptive national security measure. I am not willing to give up on the war on drugs because it is expensive and because people get killed; similarly, I refuse to give up on the war on terror, even though it is expensive and people get killed.
The more we fight narco-terrorists, destroy drug producing regions and fight the problem at the source before drugs get into the USA, the safer we are as law abiding citizens.
The more we fight ethno-terrorists, destroy terror cells and fight the enemy at the source before it gets to the USA, the safer we are as citizens.
So, when I remind people that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA, that Iran has a terrorist as its president, that Syria (and probably Pakistan) are pouring terrorists into Iraq to fight the USA, the more I ask, "Why not be in the Middle East?"
