Look, by focusing so narrowly on the exact nature of the "links" between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, it is easy to exaggerate the significance of any of it.

Perspective is important.

Let's look at Bush's three main rationales for going to war with Iraq:

1. WMDs and the risk that these might be passed to terrorists.
2. Links with al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the Sept. 11 massacre.
3. The opportunity to create an Islamic democracy, and inspire millions of Muslims that There Is A Better Way.

All this is a fantastic case for war...

... with Pakistan.

Want WMDs?

Pakistan doesn't pussyfoot around with anthrax (and, as we now know, Iraq didn't even have that). Pakistan has atom bombs.

In fact, Pakistan's chief nuclear scientist was so proud of his atom bombs that he was sharing the secret of how to build them with practically anyone who would buy him dinner. North Korea? Iran? Libya? Pakistan's A.Q. Khan shared nuclear secrets with 'em all. Bush

Want links with al-Qaeda? Pakistan is oozing with them. This is what Thomas Kean, chairman of the 911 commission, had to say about Pakistan last week:

"We believe ... that there were a lot more active [Qaida] contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

In fact, Pakistan was supporting the Taliban -- financially, poltically, and militarily -- right up until the Sept. 11, 2001 massacre.

If a country like that -- complete with a military dictator -- can be our ally, how in the world was Iraq a threat to our national security?

You complained...Now what is your solution?

America considered the Taliban friends once

the all the steal used in the planes and ships used on December 7, 1941 was provided to the Japanese by the United States

the CIA trained and supported Osama Bin Laden

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:You complained...Now what is your solution?

Get rid of Bush.

Quote:3. The opportunity to create an Islamic democracy, and inspire millions of Muslims that There Is A Better Way.

If we wanted to undermine the appeal of terrorism in the Mideast, we should have focused our energies and influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Iraq. The War on Terrorism right now is a lot less like a traditional military conflict and more like a battle for hearts and minds. We have plenty of ammunition to fight that battle with our way of life and values, but going that non-muscular route is not the neocon way.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:You complained...Now what is your solution?

Get rid of Bush.

that wont solve ****...you want kerry to take care of this problem? :laugh:

Socko Wiethe Wrote:If we wanted to undermine the appeal of terrorism in the Mideast, we should have focused our energies and influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

And this conflict has been going on for how many years? You thing anyone or anything can solve this conflict? They are fighting for the same land for god sake...Not even Clinton could take care of this problem

I dont think our way of life and values mean anything to a completely different culture

and please note I am not condemning EITHER way of life-just saying that they are different

Arabs and Muslims believe our way of life and values are wrong. lots of Amercians and Christians think they are wrong.

Bin Laden doesnt hate the US cuz of the PLO vs Israel. he hates the US cuz of the Persian Gulf War. he belives heathens are occupying the Holy Land-Mecca.

Reasonable minds on both sides managed to take the framework that Barak-Arafat ended on and build a settlement that has significant popular support. But the extremists won't hear of it.

It parallels our problem. If we can't undermine the credibility of the (Islamic) extremists and this becomes a fully realized conflict that is popularly viewed as a battle over religion, then our current problems are going to look very small indeed.

Laettner, I don't disagree with your points. I'm reading a book about how the west has traditionally been viewed by its enemies that makes the same points across a number of ideological-based historical conflicts.

But the West has always found ways to defeat extreme, "purist" ideologies. Islamic societies may have a common religious element, but they also have a foothold in the world of commerce and modern conveniences proferred by the West. Pushing these societies in our direction is our current challenge, and why the choice to go to Iraq has undercut our long-term prospects so dangerously.

Your ignoring the fact that Pakistan has a cooperative govt and supplies the UN forces.

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:You complained...Now what is your solution?

Get rid of Bush.

that wont solve ****...you want kerry to take care of this problem? :laugh:

Kerry believes we should fight wars when we have to -- not just because we want to.

Those are my values, too.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:You complained...Now what is your solution?

Get rid of Bush.

that wont solve ****...you want kerry to take care of this problem? :laugh:

Kerry believes we should fight wars when we have to -- not just because we want to.

Those are my values, too.

I, and the people that will be voting for Bush, did think we had to fight this war. You, and the others that will vote for Kerry, didn't think we should have fought this war. Which side gets to determine which wars need to be fought? Well, let's see, my guess would be my side as you, and your guys, aren't going to vote for Bush anyway and we're in power. So......all I have to say is vote in November for Kerry and I'll vote for Bush. This war was necessary in my eyes. Fair enough?