Quote:
Originally posted by Shortfuse
I know, just putting that in there because people are now saying that. I'm not saying that YOU said that.
Here's my problem. I believe that Bin Laden was the greater threat and not Saddam. If I was on this board in 01, then you'd heard me (being a Muslim) say that it was time for the US to go and serve Bin Laden with a plate of BOMBS with some Marines to wash it down. I'm sure most people were down with that.
My issue was that the Bin Laden problem wasn't solved before we walked into Iraq. WMDs was the MAIN (not the only) reason given that we should go there. Bush dropped the ball by naming a so-called Axis of evil of countries that had nothign to do with the WORSE attack on AMerican Soil in almost 60 years. I know a war on Terrorism would be fought on many fronts but to stretch us out all over the place was crazy as well as dangerous.
KTSNAKE, I would agree that it takes along time before History shows us who was right or wrong. I also agree that Saddam would ahve to be dealt with sooner or later. But it's the manner we dealt with him.
|
My issue with this statement is that bin Laden himself is much less of a threat than the movement he has helped spawn. The reality is that al Qaeda and other radical terrorist organizations would still exist without bin Laden, far more so than bin Laden would survive without his organizational strongholds.
So, I feel that attacking these strongholds is a must - let's remove the environment that fosters, supports, and hides these organizations. I believe the hope is that by changing the environment that has allowed these organizations to rise, you'll bring about their fall.
I do agree, however, that Afghanistan is an extremely important front, and I support that military action in the fullest.
Threaded Mode