It would be great to capture Bin Laden and string the ******* up, but does anyone really think that if we did that it would be the end of islamo-fascism? Terrorism will not end with Bin Laden's capture or death. As the President told us early on, this is going to be a long battle, and not just in Iraq.
To those who believe that we are *causing* more terrorism because of the Iraq war, please explain the following:
World Trade Center 1993
Khobar Towers 1996
East Timor 1999
USS Cole 2000
NYC, Washington,DC, Shanksville, PA 2001
All of these examples of terrorism occured before the Iraq war. Seems the terrorists don't necessarily need a war as an excuse to commit atrocities.
Here's what Australian Prime Minister Howard had to say about the theory of "if we just go home they won't hurt us anymore": "On the issue of the policy of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American governments in Iraq, the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away..." He went on to say that "... the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before Iraq. When a group claimed responsibility for the July 7 (UK) attacks, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?"
George Bush was not alone in believing there were WMD's in Iraq - he had lots of company. The UN, Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia were convinced too. The US was the only one worried enough to take action.
Do people realize how foolish it sounds to talk about the President as a "pissed off little boy" seeking vengeance for his father? Or that he and his "cronies" are making money from the war? If that's the case, you'd have to believe he's diabolical and probably mentally deranged. So no one except liberals noticed that? Did he hypnotize all the countries mentioned above, including the Congress and more than half the citizens of the US so that he could wage war for personal reasons? If he "lied", that implies that he had information that NONE of these countries had - please explain how he came by this. Did it make sense for him to invade Iraq if he in fact, KNEW there were no WMD's?
If the US "thumbed its nose" at the UN they had every reason to. The UN has proven itself to be nothing more than a corrupt, ineffective organization. When the third world member countries committing human rights abuses in their own lands get flush toilets for their citizens, maybe then we'll let them tell the US what it should and shouldn't do to protect itself.
Because we didn't find WMDs does not mean there weren't any. Saddam Hussein admitted to having the following:
3.9 tons of VX nerve gas
812 tons of Sarin gas
2,200 gals. of anthrax
Why aren't these considered WMDs? Seems to me you could do a heck of a lot of damage with those amounts.
As far as possible ties with Al-Qaeda - yes, there are philosophical differences between them and Saddam. However, that does not preclude the very real possibility of Saddam making available for sale to Al-Qaeda some of the above weapons. Al-Qaeda and Saddam were united in hatred of the US. In fact, Saddam was the only other "leader" in the mid-east to publicly state his happiness and approval of 9-11.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What's terrible is that too many people, some misguided Americans included sorry to say, want to see the war go badly because it will reflect poorly on the President. They are so blinded by hatred of Bush, that they actually take satisfaction in mounting casualties and insurgent attacks. That's what is truly sad and frankly, disgusting.