BigAL

Obviously there's only one way to think in your AmeriKa, so discussion is pointless.

I'm right about most things, but would be perfectly happy to be wrong about the Iraq war. I hope I am wrong. However, when your country embarks on a course of action that you believe to be wrong, it's cowardice to shut up and be silent about it

You'd make an excellent Nazi.

Well my 3 year old likes to player soldier, but I don't think they'd take him. Why is it so hard to believe that someone could believe Afghanistan was a just war, and the right thing to do, and Iraq is not. Had my kids been old enough and wanted to serve in the militarty to fight in Afghanistan I would have been proud. In my mind, Iraq is an optional war, it's a gamble, and was not the next step in the GWOT (I mean the struggle against global extremism). According to AKC, since you didn't support the war in Iraq, you are a coward. Do you agree?

So basically, anyone who disagrees with the current administrations decisions is the worst of all Americans and a coward? How patriotic of you. I suppose if our infallible government leaders pursued a course of genocide in the middle east, you'd be all for that too? Sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my kids for a policy I believe to be a mistake. Now if the Bush twins went over there, I might reconsider.

Do you have a point?

As people are fond of saying around here... 9/11 changed everything. The few steps you refer to were before 9/11. Post 9/11 I think we had the leverage to make other countries take a hard look at what they were doing in terms of not cracking down on terrorism. You are right that Diplomacy doesn't defend us from terrorism, but it does help to break down some of the underlying causes. As far as the Taliban goes, diplomacy was not needed there. It was either give up Bin laden or die. They chose to die (or run and get away until we lose interest). We agree on your last statement. I think the risk was too high though. Hope I'm wrong.

How about 2001, not 1991?

That's where I disagree with the GWOT (struggle against global extremism). Linking the Palestinian terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda, and dealing with them both at the same time is a mistake. Al-Qaeda didn't care about Palestine, and vice - versa. By linking them, and trying to kill 2 birds with one stone, you run the risk of uniting these foes against us, and rallying more people to their cause. It has made it that much easier for the young muslims to be manipulated into hating the "evil American agressors". Our primary concern after 9/11 should have been the causes for terrorism against the United States, not just terrorism in general. I can understand stability being the goal, but why counter the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land with an overwhelming American presence in Baghdad? If that doesn't inspire young islamic fundamentalists, nothing will. We've given major fuel to your first reason for terrorism. What do you mean by persistently belligerent? I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region. Yes he paid the families of suicide bombers, but that's a symptom or catalyst for the problem, not the cause. Taking him out doesn't stop the suicide bombers. You are right in that we won't know for a long time if we did the right thing in invading Iraq. All we can do now is support them as much as possible. The worst thing to do now is bail.

My question to you is why was Iraq the secondary target in the GWOT? I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the US when we attacked them. I think Saddam was nicely contained, and the renewed inspections had a chance of working. With that in place, we could and should have focused on eliminating Al-Qaeda. I think a war with Iraq was not necessarily inevitable. it would not have been my secondary target after Afghanistan. This is the point where Alaska Darrin cuts and pastes his nebulous Iraq - Alqeada links. However, even if true (some are quite questionable), they still don't justify the commitment of resources that we made. I think after 9/11 we had a lot of clout and sympathy that could have led to significant changes. We were in a much better position to move France, Russia, UK, from their positions. We never really gave that a chance. War was inevitable once we started moving troops around and the weather started to get hot. I also think you have to take a few steps to get to the "with us or agaisnt us" position. We basically said "we don't care what you think, we're going after Iraq next" Then we had Rumsfeld out there talking about "Old Europe" It was basically just lousy diplomacy and an arrogance in our ability to go into Iraq as liberators that I have problems with. This is not hindsight either. I expressed these views leading up to war.

The proper course of action now that we've gotten ourselves into Iraq, is entirely different than if we had not gone there at all. Now that we are there, we have no choice but to stay the course. I have always believed that we should have focused most of our energy and resources on killing or capturing Al-Qaeda operatives. Remember them? They are the organization directly responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans on our own soil. At the time we wanted Osama "dead or alive". I was 100% behind the President when we went to Afghanistan. I think we made a mistake in taking our eyes and resources off of Al-Qaeda and onto Iraq. Yes we have killed and captured many Al-Qaeda leaders, but to the average wanna be terrorist, Al-Qaeda has gone up against the mighty Americans and has won. Who has been held accountable and punished for the 9/11 attacks? Has anybody stood trial besides Moussaui? What message has been sent? Afghanistan could have been the example we tried to make in Iraq. We should have wiped the Taliban off the face of the earth. Now they are resurfacing. We should have destroyed the warlords and the poppy seed fields. We should have put more troops on the ground and captured Bin Laden early. With him dead, we could have said "see what happens when you !@#$ with America". Yes there's a risk of making him a Martyr, but what is he now? Towards the end of Afghanistan, we had the opportunity to decide what we wanted to do next to confront Al-Qaeda/Terrorism. While we still had the support of just about every country in the world, I would have convened a world wide summit on terrorism. Doing this would have at least led them to believe they had a say in what we did next. It's called diplomacy. I then would have told those countries harboring Al-Qaeda that you either round them up yourselves or we exert every political and economical lever we have to make you give them up. And if that doesn't work then we're going in ourselves. I truly believe we squandered an opportunity by the "with us or against us attitude" As far as my definition of the problem goes...i'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I made an attempt to define anything. I also don't read editorials. I make up my own mind about things. What problem are you trying to find a solution to? The war in Iraq?, or the GWOT (I mean the stuggle against global extremism)

Well, I always thought the GWOT was a joke. It's like the war on drugs. Prior to the election, it was another way to keep the American people scared into voting for Bush. Now they don't want us to think that we are in a constant state of war because support for it continues to fall. All you guys who keep saying "its the GWOT stupid" need to find a new catch phrase to hang your hat on. Now they say that getting Bin Laden is irrelevant. Unfortutely, we made him more than irrelevant, we made him unnecessary, and in doing so inspired others to fill in the gaps. Killing or capturing him now would mean almost nothing. However, if we had caught or killed him during the Afghanistan war, it might have made a big difference. This isn't a "Bush bad" post. It's just amazing to me that now we're worried about all these Al-Qaeda inspired offshoot organizations. That seemed kind of obvious to me before the Iraq war. Just like it was obvious to me that we would help to create the next generation of terrorists.

And your surprised?

It didn't say they were trapped or locked in, just left there by their stupid ass mother. Luckily someone called the cops on her.

So who do you profile when they start importing blue eyed blonde haired Chechen muslims to do the suicide attacks? It's only a matter of time.

Apparently they are all the same to Joe.

Question for you...who among the PPP crowd claims that the the Iraqi government is so unpopular with it's own people? Maybe that's why there are no takers.

My sister is over there now visiting family. She was supposed to go out on the underground. Luckily she was going to go later in the morning. Be safe Nick.

I think it was a British version. I remember my teacher playing it to us when I was a kid in school there. I cut out of work to watch the movie today. It was pretty intense. When it was over, I was surprised that it had been 2 hours. overall it was a very good movie. Batman Begins has still been my favorite this summer.

Yes, and the 19 hijackers all came from Iraq too. Those activities do not support an invasion of another country, and as I recall, you did not support the Iraq war at it's inception either.

Solution to what? Terrorism? The Iraq war? I bet the first thing on your mind after 9/11 was that the best way to fight Terrorism is to invade Iraq, create a hotbed of activity for the terrorists there while alienating a good portion of the world that supported us in Afghanistan right?

Kelly, What's the deal with certain movies coming out on DVD without even going on PPV? I was surprised to see Hitch out already, and Vin Diesel's Dsiney flick (can't remember name) is coming out soon. It seems like they're passing up quite a bit of PPV view money. Any thoughts on this? Just curious.

I watched the Tim Burton Batman the night before seeing Batman Begins. To my surprise, it still holds up well, and I did not realize how many of the lines and scenes I knew from memory. With that said, Batman Begins is a much better representation of what I wanted to see in a Batman movie. As others have said, the other movies spent more time on the villians. This movie does justice to Bruce Wayne, and sets things up in a much more believable world. Tim Burton's movie was set in a comic book world, which is fine, but Batman Begins takes it to the real world where you think maybe this is possible.

Don't worry Todd, you weren't the only one that the sarcasm was lost on.

So the acceptable risks for this mission are that hopefully 10 years from now we'll have democracy all over the middle east, and the freedom loving Iraqis, Iranian's, Syrians, etc will rise up against the Al Qaeda's of the world stomp out terrorism. Is that what we're hoping for? To me, that is not a calculated risk. It's a hope and a prayer at the expense of our soldiers lives.