1knight164
Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
how about pakistan and Iran, Syria, Lebanon where known terrorist cells exits. where they brought the war directly after 9/11, bombing the mountains of pakistan hoping to catch Osama. but that whole operation has been swept under the rug because , saddam was the real enemy, he must be behind it all!!!!! right. who is osama again, i forgot? point bush.
You forgot Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Canada, Chechnya, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
Okay, so you're the President, where do you start? You've got the country screaming for revenge. Which country would allow us to go into their backyard in full force to fight terrorists? Which country would put up with collateral damage to include their citizens? If we "attack" a country, which one do you think would get approval from Congress and the UN? And do you honestly think catching Osama will end the terrorist attacks and the war on terror? The Pakistani's won't allow us use their country as a battleground for fighting terrorism. At the most, they've allowed us the use of their airbases and allowed the CIA and Special Forces to "assist" the Pakistani military find Osama all while the Pakistan makes nice, nice with the Taliban (Musharraf signed a peace agreement with militants who call themselves Pakistan Taliban). How successful can we be with that kind of cooperation? Valuable assests better spent elsewhere, IMO. And Afghanistan is brutal. Not a good place for us to be fighting. Ask the Ruskies. Them mountains are treacherous. We'd get annihalated. And bombs won't win a war. You still need those boots on the ground. Ask the VC.
It's easy to criticize in hindsight. I'm sure President Bush didn't wake up one night and say "I'm going to attack Iraq." (Okay, some of you believe so) I'm sure all those that approved the action had access to more information than you or I would ever see. Bush was the face and voice put behind that decision and is now the punching bag for critics.
IMO going into Iraq accomplished several things. 1) It took out a brutal dictator that, for over 10 years, has thumbed his nose at the US , taunting us by shooting at our military believing we didn't have the 'nads to go after him. "I dare you. I double dare you."
2) It has given people of a nation a fighting chance at a fresh start without fear of being kidnapped in the middle of the night by government officials to be used as amusement in torture chambers never to be seen again. Sure, murders are still occurring but what country doesn't have to deal with that. 3) instead of having to go to all those countries to hunt the terrorists, they're coming to us. And on battlegrounds that allow us to have a strong military presence and more conducive to our stategies and with the support of MOST of the country. (with the exception of the media, of course) Sure, it's a battle of attrition, one we don't want to continue with. But it keeps them busy so they can't concentrate their full efforts on attacking the US. Of course it's no anecdote. If we let our guard down, we'll get hit. 4) He stopped shooting at us.
Anyway, I get tired of hearing criticism without solutions like I hear from most dems. I don't pretend to have the answer, but IMO action is better than inaction. We had to do something after 9/11. Afhganistan was a start but them mountains was a sure showstopper. I know I wouldn't want to do battle up there. Let me end by saying that I would sure love to hear solutions, not criticisms. I, for one, would love to stop my annual trips to the middle east with the knowledge that our country is safe. Good night.
how about pakistan and Iran, Syria, Lebanon where known terrorist cells exits. where they brought the war directly after 9/11, bombing the mountains of pakistan hoping to catch Osama. but that whole operation has been swept under the rug because , saddam was the real enemy, he must be behind it all!!!!! right. who is osama again, i forgot? point bush.
You forgot Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Canada, Chechnya, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
Okay, so you're the President, where do you start? You've got the country screaming for revenge. Which country would allow us to go into their backyard in full force to fight terrorists? Which country would put up with collateral damage to include their citizens? If we "attack" a country, which one do you think would get approval from Congress and the UN? And do you honestly think catching Osama will end the terrorist attacks and the war on terror? The Pakistani's won't allow us use their country as a battleground for fighting terrorism. At the most, they've allowed us the use of their airbases and allowed the CIA and Special Forces to "assist" the Pakistani military find Osama all while the Pakistan makes nice, nice with the Taliban (Musharraf signed a peace agreement with militants who call themselves Pakistan Taliban). How successful can we be with that kind of cooperation? Valuable assests better spent elsewhere, IMO. And Afghanistan is brutal. Not a good place for us to be fighting. Ask the Ruskies. Them mountains are treacherous. We'd get annihalated. And bombs won't win a war. You still need those boots on the ground. Ask the VC.
It's easy to criticize in hindsight. I'm sure President Bush didn't wake up one night and say "I'm going to attack Iraq." (Okay, some of you believe so) I'm sure all those that approved the action had access to more information than you or I would ever see. Bush was the face and voice put behind that decision and is now the punching bag for critics.
IMO going into Iraq accomplished several things. 1) It took out a brutal dictator that, for over 10 years, has thumbed his nose at the US , taunting us by shooting at our military believing we didn't have the 'nads to go after him. "I dare you. I double dare you."
Anyway, I get tired of hearing criticism without solutions like I hear from most dems. I don't pretend to have the answer, but IMO action is better than inaction. We had to do something after 9/11. Afhganistan was a start but them mountains was a sure showstopper. I know I wouldn't want to do battle up there. Let me end by saying that I would sure love to hear solutions, not criticisms. I, for one, would love to stop my annual trips to the middle east with the knowledge that our country is safe. Good night.
