Originally posted by holycowSVTpaul:

Agreed. It is something with THEIR philosophy. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is the newest and biggest threat to our national security since the the end of the Cold War. I mentioned that in my first reply. And, in no way did I intend to suggest the US had it coming. I almost qualified that remark as I was typing it the first time. Maybe I should have.

I also take issue with the phrase WMD. Although I too use it, I think it is a propagandist phrase that came out of the Bush administration as a rational for war. What are WMD's?? It's an ambigous term. Does the US have WMD's? What are they. Now I'm not suggesting you are that stupid either but Iraq had every right to build and maintain arms under the terms of their cease fire from the first Gulf War. BUT, other than economic sanctions and enforcing the no fly zone, the US had no clear exit policy on Iraq. I guess we were just silently hoping that Saddam would fall victim of a coup d'etat. Remember, the reason the first George Bush left Saddam in power was because there was no one to fill the power vaccume.

Back on the rational for Saudis flying planes into buildings---Again, it was a supreme act of terrorism and terrorists should be hunted down and killed but I do think the US underestimated the bad feelings the US was fostering in the Middle East while occuping Saudia Arabia. Most of is citizens resented the US presence there.




OK, glad we are in agreement about militany Islam.

WMD...varied but not ambiguous in concept. US has WMD, as do many other countries. "Iraq had every right to build and maintain arms under the terms of their cease fire from the first Gulf War"...but NOT WMD, and this was clearly spelled out. And again, Sadam deliberately generated an illusion that he had WMD, to his people to his generals, and to the 4 best intel agencies on the planet. My point is that doing nothing..leaving the status quo was allowing Sadam to generate vast billions in wealth via "oil for food" allowed by corrupt UN, French, Russian, Chinese officials. And, he bought there vote to look the other way & block US intevention. We were wrong about active WMD, but not mislead by the Pres. We were right about about Sadam providing money to terrorists, sanctuary to Al Zarqawi & other terrorists, training camps. We were right about the millions murdered. We uncovered what has been called the largest financial scam/UN corruption in history. And we IMO were right in planting a democracy in the heart of the mideast as the "antijihad" seed....as the 2 are mututally exclusive "matter-anti-matter" to borrow from Rodenburry...though only after many YEARS will this be clear. Historianns will mark these as interesting times.

Exit policy...well we NOW have one. This is good as we were harming Iraqi citizens with sanctions..especially since the UN aid process was corrupt. Yet we would STILL be sanctioning for the forseeable future without the invasion. And again, when sanctions stopped..Sadam planned to go back to his usual tricks. BTW, Powell/Bush I wanted to finish Sadam but the UN blocked that citing "power vacuum" as you put it. In hindsight...maybe that was a bad move. The UN has been just full of great ideas..

"US was fostering in the Middle East while occuping Saudia Arabia"...explain? We were occupiers?

Bush has not been perfect in this but on balance, I think Iraq & Afganistan will pay dividends long term..well after the election hype. I believe Kerry to be a fraud...an antiwar passivist "uberliberal" masquerading as a centrist hawk when politically expedient. He offers no new ideas...boasts a "plan" which is the same as GWB only "smarter". Says he will expand by 40,000 troups yet says Bush is the one planning a draft. Says he will get more UN involvement when France, Germany have refused him flat, voted against the 87 billion for tropu equipment, yet is critical of Bush for not equiping troups, moans about no UN involvment in Iraq yet voted NO to Gulf War I with a coalition, says he supports more intel yet authored the largest intel cut bill in history AFTER WTC I, says he will fight with conviction in Iraq, yet clearly lacks it "wrong war..wrong time". He hammers the president as responsible for frayed relations with UN yet IGNORS mounting evidince that they infact, BETRAYED US (France sold there UNSC vote, Russia armed Sadam days before we invaded!). I find his retoric to be most harmful to the moral of our troups, our allies who he trivializes, and emboldens our enemy. As I consider THIS matter to be the prime responsibility of the Pres..above and beyond any economic panderings that go on, under no circumstances can I in good consious vote for this man to be president.

1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)