Via Dolorosa said:
What did you want to discuss? Considering modern circumstances with us being at war and us having been attacked and liberals’ recent comparisions of Bush and Hitler, I figured that was what you were doing, and I simply restated what I thought the implication of your post was. You asked, “any thoughts” – that’s pretty open-ended. Did you have something else in mind? Please elaborate.
Via Dolorosa,
To show what the country would be like if Moveon.org or Michael Moore ruled the country. These two groups as well as others from the left did not want to invade Afghanistan nor implement any kind of Patriot Act to protect us. They called for understanding the root causes of terrorism and blamed us for its occurance.
If I remember correctly, most agreed that the terrorists were in Afghanistan. Most of our young men who chose to join the military signed on for that assignment. (God bless them all). We were all in agreement at that one point in time. Remember?
Actually Bush made it very clear that we were going after terrorists AND the states the sponsor/harbor them. I highly doubt that many signed up thinking, “Afghanistan and then we are done!”
I don’t know much about this. If true, what of it? It may have deserved higher priority than Iraq, but not necessarily depending on circumstances.
Referring to USA I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
I suppose however it seems, imo, a little too short-term to make a determination.
Not necessarily. I don’t know the finer details, but just because we passed it three years ago does not not mean that it was fully implemented the moment it was passed.
No, they were FUNDING the terrorists. Sadamm gave TONS of money to suicide bombers who were attacking Israel, some of them also were planning to attack us. He had every reason to go there.I think Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. I think he may have been justified by 9/11 to attack Afghanistan as it was supporting terrorist camps. However there was no evidence to show that Iraq had any connection to the 9/11 incident.
IF anything, all indications are that the Saudis were more culpable. 11 of the attackers were Saudis. Yet we still see Bush walking hand in hand with the Saudi leader. Saudi money still funds Al-Queda and they have done nothing to capture Osama Bin Laden. It was a Saudi official who let Bin Laden get away previously.
Saddam is not a nice guy by any stretch, and his sons were even bigger nutcases. It is good that we got rid of him. BUT now we are caught up in what basically should be an internal struggle for power. No matter who emerges, they will be seen as an American puppet ruler.
As long as US troops are there, it will be a breeding ground for anti-American insurgents both Iraqi and non-Iraqi nutcases. Pretty soon we will find ourselves in another Vietnam, where the locals just want us out of there at all cost. That is a war we can not win, without total genocide. We can turn the desert into a sheet of glass but what would that prove ?
90% of Iraq is muslim, the odds of it becoming another Islamic state is astronomically high. To expect a pro-US government is not realistic. IF we wanted to take over an oil producing country in the middle east, we should have attacked the one most responsible for the 9/11 incident. Take out Saudi Arabia and we could solve our energy crisis overnight
There may be a couple of billion muslims at our gates, but why should that bother us, we ripped over millions of indians to get rich farm land and they didn’t even bomb anyone. Why not hassle a few arabs to steal some oil ?
My only question is, now that Iraq is done with, what country do we attack next ???
wc
Not for this it isn’t. If Bush pulls it off, he’ll be a genius. I know what he is trying to do, and it would take a heck of a lot longer than 3 or even 8 years. I do not think it will work out quite the way he envisions, but it’s still a good idea.
Funding to attack Isreal is a far cry from involvement with 9/11.