![]() |
|
| Sponsored Links |
| Red Cross - Donate Today Save the Rainforest |
|
|||
|
Afghanistan was a better target in so many ways...
1) The links between al-qaeda and the taliban were uncontested. There was clear evidence they were sponsoring terrorism, rather than the pure accusations people spew about iraq. 2) Taliban society was so bizarre and oppressive as to defy logic. Yes, saddam was oppressive, but it was still very possible to lead a normal life in saddam's iraq ( as long as you don't mess around with the government ). Iraq was a united country, but with a very divisive populace, it will be difficult to put it back together again. Afghanistan was so screwed up to begin with that it doesn't really matter what you do, the people will be happy enough. 3) Afghan society had become accustomed to bloody war and civilian deaths. Civilian deaths in afghanistan are not likely to cause outrage or unrest, since they have been living with war for so long. 4) Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Nobody can say we went there for oil. The lack of any conclusive evidence that saddam was supporting al-qaeda other than "saddam was bad, and bad people support terrorists," the chaos and unrest an invasion would create in iraq, and, most important, the fueling of anti-american sentiments throughout the middle east, make Iraq a very poor choice for invasion. It causes more problems than it solves.
__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984 |
|
|||
|
I'm sure JP5 is going to accuse me of adding fuel to the fire. I'll say the same to her.
__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984 |
|
|||
|
I have long held the opinion that 'w's gang should have swooped in and taken out Osama - quickly, brutally, using overwhelming force instead of "surgical strikes".
Instead they disrupted the Taliban gov't which got a lot of financial support from Osama and gang at the beginning to cement their (Taliban's) power. Instead they ran off to get on with their original agenda - the smash-and-grab oil robbery in Iraq. (remember that 'w' bombed Iraq 3 weeks into his reign and had meetings about how/when to go in from the start) Instead they started up a propaganda tactic to convince their neo-con eejit voter base that Saddam did Sept 11th - and sadly, succeeded. IOW - -they blew it. The "strategy" then was bad - the "strategy" since has been worse. Disastrous for America, make no mistake. Saddam ran a SECULAR gov't. (look it up, neo-cons) Osama is a religious extremist - kinda like 'w' - except less powerful and destructive. Saddam and his gov't did not support Osama - they "had words" in the media on several occasions and Osama called on the Iraqis to oust the "infidel". He issues a fatwah against him. (religious decree) My strategy after Sept 11th: go in fast, go in BIG, get Osama and anyone - ANYONE in the way - collateral damage be-(*)(*)(*)(*)ed. That would have been an object lesson to all nations/tribal areas that if you have a terrorist nest in your midst you are in severe danger - ALL of you. You don't want your houses, schools and hospitals bombed, you say? Either turn them over, if you have the power, or expose their camps/hideouts and get out of our way while we clean up that nest for you. I had to laugh (because I couldn't kick him where his 'nads should be) when Sen Rick Santorum stood up in the Senate today and was yammering about how terrible the beheading was (never heard anything from him about how terrible the Abu Ghraib stuff was - I musta missed it, eh? hahahah) he said "actions like this are why we must rid the world of these people." Does ANYONE here really and truly believe - without benefit of hallucinagenic drugs - that we can RID THE WORLD of these people when our every invasion/occupation recruits MORE OF THEM? Let the locals all over the world make their decision - - to live with these extremists - or die with them. Wouldn't it be SO MUCH more effective to have the "little people" involved actively? All they can do now is move from place to place, country to country, towing what I swear is the same darn goat - dodging bombs. They could be our eyes and ears. Christ knows the 'w' regime isn't averse to bribery - they did a LOT of it to try and form the faux coalition prior to the Iraq invasion. Slip the locals a li'l cash for Purina Goat Chow - that'll buy some good will - just as it did when Osama did it. He paid for schools, medical clinics, orphanages, etc - and paid his way into the people's hearts. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I believe that quote was from last year. Wonder what the ratio is up to NOW?! Not that I'm a military expert, (but then again, it's clear that neither is anyone in the Pentagon), but I agree with your approach. Instead of attacking the one who DIRECTLY supported the attackers of 9/11, we focused MUCH of our effort on a country that maybe, sorta, kinda wanted to see the U.S. fall as bad as Osama's boys. And where is Osama these days? Gettin' some sun. Deflowering virgins. Working on his putts and short golf game. I hear he has a new video camera too - maybe he's taking classes at NYU's Film School. The braintrust that's running this nation into the ground can't realize that Al Qaeda is not like a formal army. It seems more like the Russian mob from what I've read. There are leaders, but there's no solid chain of command throughout. We have been successful in fighting the Italian/Sicilian mafiosi because they HAVE a chain of command - and less powerful families report to more powerful families. We are having almost no success with the Russian mob, because they do not check in with HQ before smuggling money, drugs, guns and prostitutes into North America. Money, drugs, guns and prostitutes?! Sounds like a night on the town with Brother Neil. We should be in Afghanistan, no doubt. If Iraq had offered them assistance, we should have NOT respected any borders chasing down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. But to move into a country with a "bad, mean, evil leader" and promise to bring freedom, ice cream and puppies to the populace... by bombing the good, the bad & the ugly... snatching them off the street at random and making them pose naked with some gutter trash... real f'ing bright - who ever did it. As I said before, it wouldn't upset me at all if ALL of the neo-con(men & women) would swap uniforms and go play for Osama. With them publicly on his side, he would be outta business in 90 days or less. Come on guys & gals! It would work! You'd discredit him. Take one for the team. Do it for the nation. You DO love your nation, DON'T you??? We don't care what the world thinks! We'll kick everybody's @$$! We'll call anyone who opposes us a terrorist sympathizer or an apologist! We're the good guys and God loves us more... we hear voices that tell us so! I wish these people would buy a one-way ticket on Delta and go establish the democracy of their dreams... IN IRAQ!!!!! Foreign lands are on their minds a helluva lot more than the state of this nation, I'll tell ya that.
__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn." |
|
|||
|
"Foreign lands are on their minds a helluva lot more than the state of this nation, I'll tell ya that."
That's because they and their corporate bumbuddies already HAVE this country! Until January - -DIJA SEE THE NEW POLL NUMBERS TODAY? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|