"Dan White" wrote in
:


"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
5.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost
finished. There was no need to rush in. What Bush did is
create a record level of anti-American sentiment not just in
the middle east but throughout the world. There will be
blowback for years to come.

Maybe so, but on the other hand, it may discourage some countries
or individuals from actively pursuing that anti-American sentiment
for fear
of
being attacked by the USA.


Exactly. That part of the world is ruled by whoever has the
biggest stick. They do not respect weakness (aka diplomacy when
there is nothing to back up the diplomacy).


No, what they do is race to get a big stick themselves. Just look at
how fast North Korea and Iran are moving to get nukes.

Were we right to invade Afghanistan?

Of course. The Taliban directly sponsored Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda was
responsible for 9/11. Do you honestly believe that any president would
not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

The invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary step to retaliate against an
attack on American soil, and to stamp out a state-sponsored haven for
Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was
effectively contained, had no WMDs, was nominally cooperating with
inspections. Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic
fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating
significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime.

Those of us in the opposition are not saying the US shouldn't defend
itself. On the contrary, we believe in a strong America every bit as
much as you do. The difference is that we believe that our recent
actions are ill-conceived and that they weaken the US in the long run.