RebelKev Wrote:Afghanistan and Iraq were under the watchful eye of who?
Must I remind you of 9/11 and where the terrorists trained at? Yes, you bet your ****** that terrorism-supporting countries pose a threat. THAT should be obvious to you. You're being obtuse as hell, I just don't know why.
I agree a little more with the war vs. Afghanistan. Clinton dropped the ball not invading them years ago, and the first Bush dropped the ball by allowing the Taliban's rise to power after the Soviets pulled out.
Iraq was under our watchful eye, with the Brits and Aussies helping out. Ever hear of a no-fly zone? Just prior to war in 2002 and 2003, we even had inspectors on the ground in that country. We had an armada in the Med and the Red Sea flying sorties out the wazoo over Iraq. We had drones and satellite surveillance, among special ops cavorting around Baghdad. We had troops in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq. With all this in mind, how can you say Saddam and the Iraqis posed a threat to the security of our nation? Even suggesting that they were a threat to us says you have little confidence in the USA's might because Iraq was a defeated country and their soldiers had long ago lost the will to fight anyone. Why you don't accept these facts, I don't know. I can just speculate and say you are like most Americans and get all gah-gah when we're overseas kicking some serious bootay!
Where were the terrorists trained at? Certainly not Iraq! Most were trained in Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
If you want any level of credibility with me, Kev, you have to agree that Iraq posed no threat to the USA!
Terrorists are more active in Iraq now that we "control" that nation than they were before we invaded. If you want to go after the real hot-bed terrorism supporting nations, you'd go after Saudi Arabia and the UAE, along with N. Korea, Indonesia, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia, Zimbabwe and Israel (among others). Afghanistan had some serious terrorism training was going on and we focused on them because we wanted Osama (who we thought was there), and if you remember the world's response to that--many nations helped in that endeavor--including bastions of liberalness Canada, Germany and France!
Nonetheless Kev, to say even Afghanistan was a threat to the United States suggests you think the USA is a weak and puny nation. Afghanistan challenging the USA militarily would be analogous to a Pop Warner football team battling the New England Patriots on the gridiron.
Lastly Kev, the terrorists attacked us at the time they did because of whom we have in White House. Terrorists are intelligent people and they know our culture, our politics and our mannerisms relating to foreign policy. They attacked us at the time they did because they knew George Bush would respond as he has. Terrorists are confrontational and countering their attacks on us with military responses in Afghanistan and Iraq (with Syria coming soon) gives the terrorists some sense of legitimization of their endeavors. We see them as terrorists, they see themselves as soldiers. Now that GW waged war in response, the terrorists are getting what they wanted. They wanted a fight, without a fight their organizations are almost non-existent. Now that we are engaged in the two nations in question, their organizations are recruiting more and more fanatics to battle our chief fanatic--Bush.
And after all this war we have waged, we are still no safer from terrorists because the president's policies are foolhardy. Attacking Iraq when the trouble is with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other nations is just poor policy, and wasteful! While we occupy Iraq, terrorists coalesce there, making that nation our "west-bank."
