No, the statement he made that started this side discussion was that, paraphrasing here, no one could deny that the key officials of the Bush Admnistration were worse than Hitler and his top leaders. I have no idea what you seem to presume everyone who's in-the-know believes about the reasons we've fought in and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Taking the longer view - which is the one that ought to matter, in my opinion - we have eliminated the bases of operation for two major security threats, and in the process created the possibility for a more stable and predictable situation in a region of the world that was going nowhere but to Hell and threatening to drag as many of us as it could along - so, in those respects, yes, the country is safer, and it's not even a close call. After 9/11, how long did you think it was going to be until there was another such event, possibly even worse?
hey i tried to erase it but thank you anyways for answering....have a great weekend....Whats up with Kobe??? oh boy....
???? 9/11 ????? KeynarFye you tripped AGAIN! That does it :eek: I'm revoking your permit. I want my money back 9/11 mastermind=present cabal in dictatorship You poor soul you
right. cruise missles and soldiers walking up and down their streets are going to stop the next 19 fanatics from getting on airplanes with boxcutters.
I'd say it's worked so far, but that would be overselling the policy at what may be an early stage in its unfolding. There are clear costs - terrible human costs and financial ones as well - but the strategic justifications vis-a-vis the war on terror include, though are not limited to, the following: 1) Denying AQ a major base of operations in Afghanistan while arresting, killing, or pursuing large numbers of its members, including leadership cadres, radically reduces its capacity to plan and finance operations, to train new recruits, and to pose as the glorious leaders of Islamism on the march. 2) Putting pressure on recalcitrant, terrorist-supporting governments such as Syria's or the mullahocracy in Iran - partly through the object lesson of the former Iraqi Ba'athist regime, partly by stationing large numbers of troops nearby - is necessary to put them out of the terrorism game, and to lay the groundwork for reform or eradication of the regimes that help support and produce Islamist terrorism. 3) Reducing financial and material support for AQ and for other terrorist organizations, including especially the ones fighting Israel, is essential if there's ever going to be any progress on the main open pretext for anti-American agitation in the Muslim world. 4) Being able to withdraw troops from Saudia Arabia and end the UN sanctions policy removes two underpinnings of anti-American Islamist propaganda. 5) Removing the opportunity for incidental Iraqi mischief and for much more serious threats down the line, and removing uncertainty over Iraqi ability and interest in arming, supporting, or utilizing terrorist groups simplifies the overall strategic situation, and helps ensure that it won't spin completely out of control. 6) In addition to the set of "sticks" implied in much of the above, we offer the carrot of fuller cooperation with the West, use of oil and other resources for the benefit of the people rather than for autocratic regimes, and the possibility of economic and political progress. At the same time, we increase the impetus and also the room for governments throughout the region to reform. Homeland security issues are a different subject. There's no policy that can guarantee absolute safety from every death-mad zealot in the world, but 9/11 was not the result of 19 death-mad zealots coming together at random. Your idea of an effective policy would be... what? Passing resolutions at the UN?
Of course we all favor some methods of dealing with terrorism, but there is no evidence to this point that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is helping the cause of the war on terrorism. I seem to recall even the French had a resistance movement during their occupation by Germany.....so I assume a resistance movement is alive and well in Iraq. The dream of imposing democracy on the middle east, and that they are going to love it (and us) because we do, may turn out to be a tremendous error.
Your opinion. Other observers differ - and refer to diverse events in Israel, Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, among other places. Part of the problem with any such assessment is that we cannot know what we would be dealing with if the Administration had not pursued the course it took. Presumably, we'd still be running no-fly zone missions in the North and South, and watching the UN sanctions continue to fall apart except where they happened to harm the Iraqi people and inflame anti-West sentiment the most. US standing and credibility in the region would probably be rather weak - with little to back up our stated policy of zero-tolerance for terrorist-supporting regimes. We would probably be unable to pressure Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran effectively, and Islamic fascism, rather than being in retreat, would be seen has having weathered the post-9/11 storm fairly well. It's very hard to say, of course - and the issue isn't just how much safer from terrorism we are today, but whether we've advanced the war in all its complexity in relation to the longer time. I gave one set of arguments for why I believe we have done so. None of this really makes much sense though, because the moment the World Trade Center towers fell, Saddam was a goner - not because he had anything directly to do with the attacks, but because the threat, distraction, and challenge he presented were no longer tolerable for a country at war. It was clear to many of us on the very day. Whatever Gore says now about how he would have handled things as President, I tend to believe he and most Presidents we've had would have ended up sooner or later at the same conclusion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or equate, with this observation, but, if we're lucky, the Iraqis will end up being as collaborationist as the French were. Or it may turn out to be the best thing the US has attempted in our lifetimes. In any event, I don't believe there was any choice left but to make the effort. I suppose we could have acted like true imperial powers of the past - and have ignored or even attempted to maximize civilian casualties, rather than try to minimize them and build something in the aftermath. If we fail, and there's a "next time around," it may make this war look like touch football.