| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| "We will take the battle to the terrorists so we don’t have to fight them on our shores." |
| 2003-08-27 |
| President Bush, defending the U.S. occupation of Iraq, on Tuesday vowed to pursue the war against terrorism which he said had in part had prompted the U.S. action against Baghdad. "Our war on terror continues," Bush told about 600 supporters at a lunch in Minnesota that raised $1.2 million for his 2004 re-election bid. He likened the ousted Iraqi government to that in Afghanistan which had given haven to al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, calling both "terror regimes.." "Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more," he said. Here I would agree with Bush in that both Afghanistan and Iraq are "terror regimes". However, both regimes still exist and are possibly strengthening. But, here’s where he really loses me: White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said that in his speech in St Louis to the American Legion, a war veterans group, the president would say that "we will take the battle to the terrorists so we don’t have to fight them on our shores." This is the new argument; that we will fight terrorism on the battlefield of our choosing. This is a dangerous mis-conception that only serves the narrow administration view that Saddam Hussien was a primary orchestrator of the worldwide muslim terror offensive against the US and its allies. Whatever proliferation of weapons that may have occurred in Iraq would appear to have been exacerbated by our invasion as any WMD’s that might have existed were probably dispersed, perhaps to Syria or Iran. What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? Apart from the daily attacks on our soldiers by Iraqi resistance - possibly aided by some outside terror network, possibly no more than remnants of the Republican Guard or the like- alot of the devastating bombings of late have taken place in countries away from the Iraqi battlefield. What is it about our operation in Iraq that would support the argument that we won’t have to fight them (terrorists)on our shores? Most observers predict another devastating attack in the US is inevitable if not imminent. Further, by likening Iraq to the worldwide muslim terror offensive the president does what Hussien could not; he binds Iraqis to the Muslim resistance, practically inviting them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily. This will create, not a democratic wedge against Muslim extremism in the region, but sadly, American targets in Iraq whose lives are no less important than ours here in the states. To be fair to Bush, he hasn’t really spelled out just what he means by this. Maybe someone here can. |
| Posted by:fullwood@returningsoldiers.us |
| #35 I've heard it said that the US drew the Soviets into Afghanistan or at least kept them busy by fueling the opposition there with the intention of bogging them down and bankrupting the already faltering empire which was involved in conflicts in the neighboring independent states as well. Our position in Iraq reminds me of that. Over-committed militarily as we may well be, and economically unstable as we are, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where we prioritized our troops out of Iraq in a hurry to better organize our forces to satisfy a more urgent set of inituitives elsewhere. I wish that the admin. was as straight as Old Patriot. Still time for them though... |
| Posted by: fullwood 2003-8-28 1:30:06 AM |
| #34 I'm sitting here in the heart of a 'military' town, Colorado Springs. We have Fort Carson (parts of the 4th ID, 10th Special Forces, a few extra support units), Peterson Air Force Base (US Space Command, USAF Space Command, NORAD, Northern Command), Shriver AFB (2nd Space Wing), Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD), and the Air Force Academy. There are also about 65,000 retirees within a 40-mile radius, and offices of dozens of major defense contractors. You hear a lot of military scuttlebutt around here. Most everyone agrees: the drawdown at the end of the "cold war" was too deep, too fast, and not matched by a reduction in commitments. In fact, if anything, the number of commitments increased steadily through the 1990's, and now stand higher than ever before in our history. At the same time, we have fewer troops on active duty than at any time since the Korean War ended in a stalemate. We're spread very, very thin all over. We have three choices: either end some of the less critical missions, call up even MORE guard and reserve units (they're pretty thin, too, with all the ones called up already), or get some outside help from other countries until we can rebuild our armed forces to match our commitments. Luckily, more and more nations are finally waking up to the fact that Islamofascists don't care who they target, even other islamofascists, as long as it advances their goal of world domination. They're beginning to recognize that this is a war, and that the battlefield is anywhere and everywhere in the world. There are active battlefields in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Chechnia, China, Iraq, Israel, Sudan, Uganda, Mali, Algeria, Nigeria, throughout Europe (although most of that warfare is economic, rather than military), and anywhere else these jihadinuts can operate with any hope of success. There are still nations that refuse to acknowledge this - they know it, and know they're targeted, but can't seem to get the courage to stand up against this determined enemy. We can only hope that, as more nations realize what they have to lose if they don't fight now (and the very real potential of losing), they will work with us in this battle, and that means deploying troops where they're needed, freezing funds of terrorist organizations, and in general help us stamp out this growing menace. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-8-27 11:29:06 PM |
| #33 Correction: if the US & coalition allies can pull this off on their own |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-27 7:55:01 PM |
| #32 should we be taking REASONABLE steps to get more international support Damn these Europeans are excellent chess players. If the US does finally allow EUropean involvement in Iraq, the EUropeans will have managed to recover some of their lost business, while taking very minimum risk (no major combat). I'll be somewhat surprised, but absolutely elated, if the US can pull this off on their own. As it stands now, it's a 50-50 proposition. |
| Posted by: Raphael 2003-8-27 7:52:38 PM |
| #31 im in the middle on the will it take more troops debate. One side says - Shinseki was right, we needed at least 300,000 to 400,000 troops, its all falling apart, lets beg the UN for whatever help we can get. The other side says basically - we dont need no stinking allies (or to be more precise, since we have the UK and the other coalition of the willing states - we dont need any more stinking allies than we have already) 140,000 americans, plus 20,000 allies, plus about 60,000 Iraqis, plus another 40,000 or so iraqis we'll have trained in a year is more than enough. well its not true that Iraq is collapsing. On any of a variety of metrics things are either deteriorating very slowly, staying about the same, or improving steadily. And yes, more trained Iraqis will help. And yes, better intel (and more funds for reconstruction) would help more than more troops. OTOH - we probably could do some useful things with more troops - like patrol the borders better. and we need more troops to maintain the current level of coalition of forces - somebody needs to replace the 101st AB, and it doesnt look like we will have enough trained iraqis to do that in time. And it would be wise to plan for contingencies. Things may be stable or slowly improving now - to simply assume that they wont get worse in the future is foolish. So should we go hat in hand begging to the UN - no - should we be taking REASONABLE steps to get more international support - absolutely. Maybe we can get Turkish help without a UNSC res. That takes care of the 101st AB problem, and would allow us, just barely, to avoid the UN. (although double overseas shifts for combat units is a real PROBLEM) If we can get a UNSC res that will get us a larger group of troops, and the price is reconstruction contracts to the French, and oil contracts to the Russians, that will be worth it. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-27 5:03:13 PM |
| #30 Okay...let me get this straight..."we need international support"...America cant do it alone"...correct me if Im wrong but doesnt over a dozen countries providing troops to our efforts negate the alone part? Maybe you mean French and German troops are needed in order to be succesfull. Clarification here: There is no way in HADES that France would deploy troops to Iraq. Their huge muslim population would make it suicidal to do so. The very lucrative contracts with Syria and Jordan would make it unlikelly. Maybe you mean money for reconstruction? Well, the french are so strapped for cash they are considering eliminating one of their many holidays in order to collect additional tax revenues. So the posibility of the french contributing any cash is nill. Oh you mean putting the french in charge of collecting oil revenues!!! Im sure they would be happy to contribute in spending Iraqi oil profits (under the guise of the UNs oil for palace program of course) |
| Posted by: GarryowenMG (ret) 2003-8-27 4:20:46 PM |
| #29 In the last half of 20th cent.,if you had a terrorist group,you would find they were supported by a commmunist gov't.-Russia,Cuba,etc.It appears that in first half of 21rst cent.,if you have a terrorist group,its members are followers of Islam.(I define a terrorist group as one that deliberately targets civilians and civilian infrastructure as way of achieving goals.)If a spaceship came and took every single American and follower of Judaism off the planet forever,do you think Islamic groups would stop fighting in Russia,in Algeria,in the Phillipines,in Malaysia,in Kashmir,in India,in Subsaharan Africa,and stop oppressing the people of Iran? We are in for another "cold war",only this time it is in opposition to a country,but to a belief system that is completely opposed to both US and Western belief systems.During the old cold war there were those who made excuses for Soviet Union and its brethren.During this new "Green War",the excuse-makers for Islamic terrorists should ask themselves:will the terrorists stop if Israel disappeared,if US vanished?If yes,why are you supporting genocide?If no,then US,Israel aren't the problem. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-8-27 2:33:52 PM |
| #28 Fullwood Are you aware that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world? Should we just focus on Afghanistan and ignore the dedicated, persistent action of Islamic radicals in South-east Asia? Do you think the Islamic radicals are ignorant of the petroleum reserves in Indonesia and the Middle East that could be leveraged to cause economic problems for the West? What kind of resources exist in Afghanistan that make that country so vital to U.S. interests? Wasn’t the value to the radicals that Afghanistan was so impoverished and out of the way that they pretty much could develop their organization without interference? Just a few of many questions I think you are overlooking in your rush to judgment. |
| Posted by: cingold 2003-8-27 2:25:12 PM |
| #27 I get the feeling Fullwood is alone on this issue. This makes me enormously happy. I've heard all of fullwoods comments dozens of times already from opponents of GWB. While the supporter who points out the history and benifits seem to be drowned out. Say something I don't already know about, Fullwood. That might change my mind, IF it's a good point. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-8-27 2:25:00 PM |
| #26 iraq first vs Pakistan first. people who call Iraq a hellhole should realize that, as far as the potential for democratic development of the population, pakistan makes Iraq look like, well the garden of eden. With 150,000 troops give or take 50,000, we can join with the people of Iraq and build a better society - which can lead to a better position across the region, including Pakistan. Go into Pakland instead, and it will take 500,000 or more troops, fighting not just AQ but most of the population in NWFP and Baluchistan, and about half the pop in the rest of the country. Make Tikrit look like a picnic. Of course you could go in with the Indians to provide troops. Not many better ways to convince the muslim world that this is a battle of civilizations. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-27 2:15:23 PM |
| #25 You say, "Most observers predict another devastating attack in the US is inevitable if not imminent." Well? They've been saying that since Sept 12th, they said that after Afghanistan and they said that before the Gulf War2. I don't know about you but I haven't seen any of these iminent major terror attacks. And until we do, it would seem logical to conclude that the strategery is working. |
| Posted by: TheSwami 2003-8-27 2:12:42 PM |
| #24 The war in Afghanistan should be the center of our fight against terrorism. Except Afghanistan is no where near the real center of Islamic terrorism. Look at a map -- which is closer to the heart of the problem -- Iraq or Afghanistan? Reignite the coalition by declaring a new campaign that spreads out from Kabul to Pakistan and forces Musharef to account for the terrorists who take refuge there. Wasn't Musharef an important part of the coalition you want to "reignite"? I'm no fan of his, but I at least have the brains to realize how hard it could be to supply/support troops in Afghanistan without Pakistan's cooperation. But, we are bogged down in Iraq. Says who? Gonna take more troops, not less, even to stand-down there. Says who? Withdrawal is not going to come anytime soon. Well, no shit. We were in Germany for over fifty years. The goal is victory, not withdrawal. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-27 2:12:30 PM |
| #23 So, what is your constructive proposal for ending the terrorist threat in this day and age? The war in Afghanistan should be the center of our fight against terrorism. War in Afghanistan Afganistan provides the US with the opportunity to not only crush the regime that supported the attack on our country, but to galvanize the broad coalition that was united before the Iraq invasion, against terrorism. It looks like we let the world of of the hook there as they turned their backs on our immediate quarry as they focused their opposition on our foray into Iraq. Reignite the coalition by declaring a new campaign that spreads out from Kabul to Pakistan and forces Musharef to account for the terrorists who take refuge there. But, we are bogged down in Iraq. What to do? Gonna take more troops, not less, even to stand-down there. Withdrawal is not going to come anytime soon. |
| Posted by: fullwood 2003-8-27 1:54:00 PM |
| #22 no it is unfair. Only a handful of money hungry spies are helping America. In some sunni village some father killed his own son after he was discovered to be a spy. American troops in Iraq are not bait. I talked to some distressed father in seattle who told me that his son is being used as bait to attract resistance in tikrit...he is told to drive down a dark Ambush alley to attract fire. America should be able to seal the border in Iraq. If Saddam was able to seal that border so should we...we took it upon ourselves to come from 6000 miles away to invade a sovereign state and now we cant turn on th lights or guard the pipeline. Saddam had more enemies in Iraq than America and he was able to guard the pipeline so should we...we have failed. The pentagon has yes to invent pipe fixer bombs. |
| Posted by: steveerossa 2003-8-27 1:35:26 PM |
| #21 I need a little more information on WHY AMERICA CANNOT DO THIS ALONE (that is if alone means America, Australia, and England, basically the same countries that won WWII). Before I make predictions of the future, I usually research historically similiar situations. It appears that the detractors (the same people who were against the war in the first place) like to look at Vietnam. Vietnam was not a occupation, it was a Democrat attempt to defend a country against a communist aggressor. It took 10+ years and it failed proving once again the best defense is a good offence. We should have taken the fight to North Vietnam and eliminated the threat! I would prefer to look at Germany after WWII. Germany and Iraq were both police states and in Germany SS guerrilla fighters kept causing us trouble up through 1947 "THE LAST NAZIS, SS WAREWOLF GUERRILLA RESISTANCE IN EUROPE 1944-1947". The daily casualty rate was similiar and the tactics where similiar. The resistance died down after a year or two once it became clear WE WERE NOT GOING TO LEAVE and the germans themselves started fighting the Nazis The Leauge of Nations after WWI was the most prominent "Internationalization" failure in history. You have too many CHIEFS in the room and the compromises you have to make weaken the whole operation. The Creation of Nato which was for most of it's infancy almost completly under U.S. control was a success (again, the French hated being under U.S. control and they backed out and stared supplying all our enemies with advance weapons and nuclear technology). Our Grandparents that fought both the Nazis and the Japaneese while at the same time suppling most of the arms to Russia (all during the Great Depression) must be turning in their graves now hearing how AMERICA CANNOT DO THIS ALONE AND NEEDS HELP. I do not believe that Americans are Cowards and a few casualties will not make us turn tail and run (well maybe the Democrats will). If we have lost the will to fight then we are done as a country and our Grandparent's sacrafice during WWII was all in vain! |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-8-27 12:45:03 PM |
| #20 steve, it is unfair to many of the Iraqis' that is why many are helping the United States. Sort of a payback for our liberating them from Saddam's sick regime. The rest can rot because they are either siding with the psychos or trying to put Saddam back in power. It allows many other nations to avoid being a battlefield, so the overall effect is far over into the positive side on the Karmic fairness meter. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-8-27 12:36:35 PM |
| #19 As the coalition efforts become more successful, violence will increase. Peace-keepers didn't become targets in Somalia until the warlords realized that a working government meant less power for some of them. As for Sadaam's role in world terror, he was not the director of any of the films, but he played studio while OBL operated as the producer. Hope GW remebers the Afhgan people when he is no longer president. His ability to fund raise is impressive. He could help that country enormously as a benefactor. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-8-27 12:35:00 PM |
| #18 fullwood What is truly tragic is how many administrations repeatedly glossed over the brewing tempest Mr. Bush is now dealing with. Why not criticize the lazy morons who, for example, in the 70s laughed off the church bombings in Indonesia and the infiltration of radical elements into Aceh? Certainly it would have made a lot more sense to deal with these problems before the roots grew so deep. You may not like what is happening with current National Security/Foreign Policy -- hopefully, you have some constructive ideas, not just partisan whining. That is what is great about this country, and such a threat to Islamic radicalism -- our diversity, in unity, makes us strong. So, what is your constructive proposal for ending the terrorist threat in this day and age? |
| Posted by: cingold 2003-8-27 12:28:21 PM |
| #17 Leave your Momma's house Stevey? LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-27 12:15:45 PM |
| #16 saddam or no Saddam, this is unfair to the Iraqis. Me fighting my enemies on your soil ? YES THIS IS A CONVINIENCE FOR MY WIFE AND KIDS IN AMERICA BUT WHAT ABOUT IRAQIS GETTING CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE WHEN WE FIGHT RADICALISED SAUDIS WHO ARE GOING TO IRAQ NOW THAT IT IS OCCUPIED. HOW WOULD YOU FEEEL IF I LEFT MY HOUSE AND DUELED MY ENEMY IN YOUR LIVING ROOM LEAVING MY HOUSE SAFE. SELFISHNESS IS A BAD THING. |
| Posted by: steveerossa 2003-8-27 12:07:48 PM |
| #15 FW - it binds Iraqis to the Muslim extremists, or anyone else who would threaten the American occupiers. LH - how does blowing up the UN do this? even Iraqis who dont much like Americans seem to like the UN. all evidence is that the Iraqis are profoundly alienated from the terrorists. FW - That is the recipe for a perpetual conflict. There will always be an endless line of Muslim extremists there to take pot shots at our troops. LH- your assumption is that this is Iraqi muslim extremists. Not clear yet, though many claim muslim fundie activity in Iraq is essentially the work of foreigners, not Iraqis. There is certainly no endless supply of salafist extremists in Iraq - Iraq is 60% shiite, and much of the sunni population is secular. FW The steady loss of American lives makes 'progress' against terrorism hard to quantify. Internationalizing the force may lessen the impact on Americans there. LH- which i would support depending on the tradeoffs and the cost. FW - The argument that we will exhaust the supply of regional extremists by drawing them into Iraq is dubious. More likely we fomenting more regional animosity by our uni-multi-ilateral presence there which I believe provides the environment for the recruitment of more young terrorists. LH - that gets back to the question - are terrorists created as a reaction to excessive US presence and force, or to deeper civilizational problems in the muslim world. Of course theres also the possibility that we will reduce even the directly political problems that lead to terrorism - by departing from Saudi, by gaining additional leverage over the Palestinian problem etc. What has been the reaction of the 'arab street" so far to the occupation in Iraq? remarkably quiet. Given that, i suspect that most of the jihadis going after us in Iraq are old jihadis, not new recruits due to the Iraqi conflict. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-27 11:51:26 AM |
| #14 I think Tom Friedman of all people, has it right. We went into Iraq not to kill gators,or even to fight the people who might give guns to gators, but to drain the swamp. IE to establish a democracy, that will transform the dysfunctional regional political culture which spawns extremist fundamentalism, failed and rogue states, and terrorist groups and the philosophies that justify them, etc. The gators are not stupid - they see what we're doing and want to stop it. IE al qaeeda is going after us in Iraq not because we are particularly vulnerable there, nor because they are dumb jihadis who attack kufrs wherever they can, but precisely BECAUSE they understand our grand strategy, and are determined to stop it. That they are attacking us, and in particular attacking entities that would advance reconstruction, like the UN, is solid evidence that we are on the right path. That we can kill them expeditiously there is a side benefit. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-27 11:42:23 AM |
| #13 Here's a take from someone who has been there and done that: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95756,00.html Man, I hear that soldier loud and clear. I hope he's right about the 'endgame'. I just don't see it happening with our invasion there. As I wrote, the occupation does what Hussien could not; it binds Iraqis to the Muslim extremists, or anyone else who would threaten the American occupiers. That is the recipe for a perpetual conflict. There will always be an endless line of Muslim extremists there to take pot shots at our troops. The steady loss of American lives makes 'progress' against terrorism hard to quantify. Internationalizing the force may lessen the impact on Americans there. The argument that we will exhaust the supply of regional extremists by drawing them into Iraq is dubious. More likely we fomenting more regional animosity by our uni-multi-ilateral presence there which I believe provides the environment for the recruitment of more young terrorists. |
| Posted by: fullwood 2003-8-27 11:35:15 AM |
| #12 The JUSTIFICATION for going into Iraq related to terrorists was that a) Saddam was developing WMD, b) had contacts with Terrorists, c) Would pass WMD to Terrorists for use against the Infidels (read: US) The UN inspectors had evidence of WMD and WMD programs, and we have found evidence of WMD programs. What was expected of us? To wait until the WMD programs bore fruit, wait until they were used to have our "smoking gun", and then have the liberal whiners complain about "Why didn't we act earlier?" It's not that they can't be pleased. It's that they DON'T WANT to be pleased. So we invade, and find that the place is crawling with terrorists. We haven't potted Saddam yet and hung his body out on display, so even more terrorists are flooding in, hoping to chase us out and bring back their sugar daddy so that the cash can flow again, or cash in that guaranteed ticket to the Paradise Allah promised to all Jihadis. And we're supposed to be surprised at this? Sh*t, the only thing that surprises me is that the turbanned ones are stupid/crazy enough to charge in where even demons fear to tread... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-8-27 11:16:59 AM |
| #11 At least try to keep the in-post commentary confined to the traditional snarky one-liners. Snarky: "You may charge me with murder--or want of sense-- (We are all of us weak at times): But the slightest approach to a false pretense Was never among my crimes! Lewis Carroll- The Hunting of the Snark |
| Posted by: fullwood 2003-8-27 11:06:51 AM |
| #10 Here's a take from someone who has been there and done that: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95756,00.html Unsurprisingly, he disagrees with Woody. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-27 10:54:52 AM |
| #9 Come to think of it, the idea of fighting a war on territory of our own chosing isn't even a political argument. It should be a given; we're in a war we have to fight -- we should fight it at a time and place we decide. Isn't that called taking the initiative? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-27 10:50:31 AM |
| #8 The advantage to the magnet effect in Iraq and Afghanistan: Imagine rabid dogs running around your city biting people randomly. Would it be better to let them roam and attack, or find a way to get them to all come to one place where the cops and dog catchers can waiting for them and deal with them? Certainly more cops and dog catchers are likely to be injured in the ensuing capture but less civilians will be biten as well. This is so obvious I can't believe it is even questioned. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-8-27 10:48:48 AM |
| #7 At least try to keep the in-post commentary confined to the traditional snarky one-liners. |
| Posted by: Kathy K 2003-8-27 10:43:06 AM |
| #6 --both regimes still exist and are possibly strengthening.-- Who's doing the strengthening? That's the question. Still costs them money to put them into Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places. And they chose the battlefield. We just moved it for the time being. --"we will take the battle to the terrorists so we don’t have to fight them on our shores". We will hear this repeated countless times in the comming weeks by the admin hacks. What does it mean, other than another weak justification for continued occupation in Iraq?-- Haven't you been paying attention the past say, 10 years? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-27 10:42:28 AM |
| #5 Pick holes in Bush's foreign policy all you like, fullwood, but till you suggest a credible alternative you're just blowing hot air... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-8-27 10:39:43 AM |
| #4 So, you're not impressed by the new administration line "we will take the battle to the terrorists so we don’t have to fight them on our shores". We will hear this repeated countless times in the comming weeks by the admin hacks. What does it mean, other than another weak justification for continued occupation in Iraq? Your statements deserve no direct response as people here and damned near everywhere have been posting on and commenting upon this for 6 or 7 weeks, at least. I read most of the posts and responses on this page and I am bewildered by the charge of editorializing. There are countless off the point comments and oblique posts. I suspect that your main objection is with my point of view. If not I expect to see your critisism attached to any and all posts regarding Iraq. I've noticed some posts without comment. If you don't like my query, then move on. Don't try to play like some paternal blog-matron. Just make your argument (If you have one). |
| Posted by: fullwood 2003-8-27 10:29:41 AM |
| #3 This is the new argument; that we will fight terrorism on the battlefield of our choosing. This is not a new argument. I've been hearing it for almost two years. Sorry you chose to ignore the debate. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-8-27 10:23:10 AM |
| #2 For someone who can type as much shit as you do and sound, at least, superficially coherent - you are either one terminally dense or willfully obtuse induhvidual. Your statements deserve no direct response as people here and damned near everywhere have been posting on and commenting upon this for 6 or 7 weeks, at least. Sigh. Either educate thyself or move along. This is but a troll post. Stop opinionizing under cover of posting and Google: Iraq +flypaper - argue with den Beste and the rest who've posted specific articles regards this topic. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-8-27 10:08:01 AM |
| #1 ...the narrow administration view that Saddam Hussien was a primary orchestrator of the worldwide muslim terror offensive against the US and its allies. - Who said this ? Nobody. What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? - It's a bonus. We're there. If someone wants to take a shot at the U.S., try it where we have an Army. Don't confuse this with the justification for the war. ...he binds Iraqis to the Muslim resistance - No, he doesn't. He binds the Saddam loyalists to the Muslim terrorists. Muslim resistance against what exactly? The "American Imperialism" that led the U.S. to conquer Germany and Japan and Kuwait and rob them of their oil ? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-27 10:06:08 AM |