Two questions: What alternatives do you believe there were, considering Iraq stonewalled the UN since the end of the first gulf war and had violated 16 or 17 UN resolutions, and its recent weapons declaration was incomplete and contained unaccounted for weapons? And, since it is well documented that there are unaccounted for weapons, what do YOU believe happened to them?

As for the "more attacks" issue, I think it was shown pretty clearly what doing nothing leads to, don't you?

 

Well ... whatever you guys think then. Hey ... while we're looking for the weapons, we might find Osama Bin Laden as well! :rollseyes:

 

It would help us to get Bin Laden if our troops could actually go into Pakistan...which is where he most likely is right now. Unfortunately where he is is one of the most lawless places on earth. Even the Pakistani military does not go there.

 

If we can "control and occupy" Baghdad, I think we can take over Pakistan. The Soviets couldn't crush Afghanistan in the 80's and we did it in 2 weeks. You mean to tell me with our technological capabilities, we can't go in there, find Bin Laden, and get back out? I doubt that.

 

i'm pretty sure he was talking politically and not just the brute force aspect of it

 

"....Unfortunately where he is is one of the most lawless places on earth. Even the Pakistani military does not go there...."

 

Actually I was talking politically. Pakistan and its President, Pervez Musharaf, have been a strong ally to the US in the war on terror. In order to not outrage the Pakistani population even more than they are at his (Musharaf's) support for the US led War on Terror he has forbidden the US to enter into Pakistani territory. Last time I checked Pakistan had successfully detonated a nuclear weapon. I would not want either Pakistan to turn into another Afghanistan or for the US to alienate Musharaf who may then side with OBL and Al Quaida (Not saying he would but he might)

So while the US is barred from chasing after OBL in the wilderness of Pakistan the Pakistani military is also not there to pursue him. This is a bad thing. Although I am willing to put money on it that the US does have some CIA and/or covert operations troops in Pakistan...as long as they are quiet. Although in such a role they would be limited in scope as to what they can do.

 

well, considering the attacks on clintons watch were not within our borders, I think its rather ludicris to compare the two terms.

actually, I'm getting quite sick of people bringing up clinton. it's not like he's the answer, but then again, neither is bush.

but still, there's been more terrorist attacks against US targets on bushes watch than on clintons. Not just within US borders either.

I think the stance bush is taking is too hard. This "fuck you" approach doesn't do anything but put salt in the wound.

God forbid we try and find a middle ground. But that would be too logical.

Quote:

I pray there is not another attack on America...but if there is I hope it is through conventional means and not unconventional. The latter will cause more death and destruction than the former.

worst statement ever.

 

btw, a War on Terror update:

Afganistan is still unstable after almost 2 years. And bin laden hasn't been found, dead or alive, either.

Iraq is still lawless after 6 months. And there still hasn't been any WMD uncovered. Plus, there's contriversy over some of the bush administrations "evidence"

wow, what a great idea it was for Amerika to take on the world.....

 

Oh really...please do elaborate on this one. Any examples?

Well when people say we should not be going after terrorists and we would be better off by taking that approach it is only logical to bring up what Clinton did and the results of such actions (or inactions depending upon which side of the coin you are on). I think Clinton showed what happens when you take a pacifist, reactionary stance towards terrorism.

And how so? Your arguments from the left are getting pretty weak.