Originally posted by BP:
No doubt. But this is just an example of how we could've benefited from taking more time to correctly plan for the issues. The direction of progress in Iraq is more difficult to change once it's started on the wrong path. We're now seeing just some of the repercussions of the shoot first ask questions later policy.



I disagree. One can't correctly plan for reconstruction for ANYTHING until the damage of war has been done. Base plans can be put into place (which were), but again, it's an iterative process; one that constantly needs revisiting and revising as needs change. It's like planning for a tornado; NO ONE knows how much damage will ultimately be done nor do they know exactly what will be needed. Again, funding was earmarked and planning started early on, but the expectation that the US should have had EVERY nuiance and hiccup mapped out to the nth degree before rolling into Iraq is pure fantasy.

It just doesn't work that way. It NEVER has and it NEVER will.

By the way, NOTHING would have changed the French, Russian and German thoughts on invasion, no matter how well we planned, so getting de facto support from the UN would have been impossible, given certain key member's economic ties to Iraq and the political game that was being played.

You are also assuming that we've taken the wrong path with Iraq in the first place...


Originally posted by BP:
I suspect the assistance we're looking for will be much more difficult to come by due to the administrations effective finger to the rest of the world when we first went into Iraq without UN support even though their support didn't matter then, but it does now. As a result WE are having to pony up the money to keep things going in Iraq and how much will it balloon to!! Talk about investing in everyone else's future but your own.



That goes without saying, though failing to garner support from a few key members in the UN doesn't the ENTIRE world make. We had and still have enough support from UN members, though not the UN body itself.

The reason UN support matters now is that we've gone in and done the "dirty work" for them; we did what the UN said they would do through resolution upon resolution. The UN as a governing body has mostly been a joke; expectations to the contrary are absurd. Hoever, they are good at police-work and recovery and rebuilding activities.

THIS is why they have an obligation to get involved. They've cleaned up countless messes beforehand without hardly a posture or whine; yet, when it comes to the US, they pout and rail (oops, I mean FRANCE and the Russian Federation under the auspices of the UN do so)...

Although they pretend they do, France doesn't speak for the entire world on this issue...


Originally posted by BP:
You must be joking. Do you think we've destroyed or severely handicapped terrorists organizations, their recruiting, or potential funding? Only a fool would believe that Al-Qaeda exists only in Afghanistan.

I'll not let you get out of this one. You asked for a political entity tied to terrorism; YOU GOT ONE! Nowhere did I say they were the ONLY one or the ONLY place, either; nice try, though.

As for your question, yes we have crippled a not insignificant portion of their infrastructure and funding via a number of operations inside and outside of Afghanistan. Recruiting? No clue, as that's difficult by any standards to track.

Originally posted by BP:
"...the questions still remain. Has the threat of attack by terrorists (which are affiliated with an organization and not a specific country or gov) really been reduced by the war?"

You cannot answer or speculate on this. It is yet to be seen.



It's easy to see. EVERY day that goes by in this country that doesn't see a terrorist attack is yet another day that our policies are working and some of the target has been passed on from our civilians to those that serve in Afghanistan and Iraq. There's a BIG bullyseye placed on the back of every GI over in the Middle-East now and it's causing terrorist organizations to allocate resources accordingly (one less nut going for the states and one heading for our troops is one less we have to worry about). It makes me sick to my stomach to think about and it kills me that this is indeed the case, but its pretty cut and dried that this is what is occuring...

Having said, that, I'll not deny that there's a 100% statistical probability that we WILL see another attack on US soil. The measures we are taking are meant to prevent as many potential attacks as we possibly can; NOTHING can prevent all. Of course, once one happens, the numf**ks in the media will immediately bring into question the efforts that have gone into securing our borders from this theat, totally ignoring reality that it's IMPOSSIBLE to stop such things, only prevent a large number of them happening more often...

Originally posted by BP:
The important point is THAT'S THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR!. And we still can't account for the wmds nor do we know where they are or who might have them now. Before we knew or had a very good inkling they were still in Iraq. Right?



How do you expect the US to IMMEDIATELY account for WMDs when Iraq didn't account for them in the first place? When they played "hide and seek" for over 10 years and lied, misdirected and screwed around on the topic? That's why we are looking for them! We've gone in around in circles on this; it's apparent that neither one of us is going to convince one or ther other on the contrary.

Time will tell.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe