Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis
Right after the attack, you stated that you doubt that the US would do what it takes to make sure that this would never happen again. Yet now, you are reluctant to attack Iraq.
Part of the neccesary action to make sure that this doesn't happen again would be toppling regimes that have a history of state sponsored terrorism. Whether or not Iraq was definatively involved in this particular act of terrorism seems irrelevant. Supposedly the war is against "terrorism" not just the perpetrators of this act; if that is the case, you need to take out and make an example of a country that sponsors these types of activities.
You cannot do a search on the web for "state sponsored terrorism" and not have the word Iraq appear in the article.
From a militaristic and strategic standpoint, making Saddam and Iraq our whipping boys for this action (rightly or wrongly) makes a lot more sense than a full scale invasion into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a complete and total mess--ask Russia about that.
There definately needs to be a response in Afghanistan; hit them long and hit them hard, but the military presense should be minimal as we are not prepared to fight that type of war. We simply do not have the infrastructure to logistically support a sustained campaign in that region. Soften them up with bombing, supply the rebels with whatever arms they want, and use covert operations to take out leaders
Iraq presents a whole other scenario militarily. We are already there. We have bases nearby. We have the infrastructure in place for a sustained attack. We should take down Saddam once and for all and cripple Iraq's military machine for good.
|
Good grief. I can't believe I actually said that....