Which war, which liberals? Many liberals were against the Iraq war from the beginning. I thought it was folly. I was for the Afghan war. I thought that invading Iraq would jepordize our efforts in Afghanistan, and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is not hind-sight. This is the position I took at the time when discussing it with friends. Some liberals were for the Iraq invasion because they believed what they had been told about Iraq having weapons of mass distruction. They changed their minds when they found out they had been lied to. Wait, you are complaining about using hind-site, yet you are using hind-site? Isn't looking at mistakes, analyzing them and correcting them, how wars are won?
Quote: Which war, which liberals? Many liberals were against the Iraq war from the beginning. I thought it was folly. I was for the Afghan war. I thought that invading Iraq would jepordize our efforts in Afghanistan, and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is not hind-sight. This is the position I took at the time when discussing it with friends -- tic...tic....This is the problem, apparently many folks do not understand that these are but on going battles in a much, much larger War that is being waged against us. Undertanding this will give the sightless, sight. Hindsight is very valuable in understanding the lessons history has to offer, but moments of time should be taken in context of what happened leading up too and after that moment....
so, you're implying that Iraq was a) justified based upon the evidence and b) the right thing to do? bwahahahahaha. I knew and said six months BEFORE we went to Iraq that it was a folly based on fabricated info and that Powell's testimony from the U.N. made his skin crawl so it was obvious he wasn't convinced what he was saying was factual.
No not really PGT. But take yourself back and understand that it was very shortly after 9/11 and everyone in America wanted somebodies head on a stick, add Saddam shooting his mouth off supporting the terrorist and doing everthing he could to convince everyone that he DID have weapons of mass destruction because he new that if countries like Iran found out he didn't, his arse would be toast. Toss in a President who had a profound dislike for him and a Congress who whole heartedly supported the war.. One can see how it happened. Many more reasons too. In hindsight was it needed? No, I don't think so. Is the world a better place without Saddam? Yes. Was the price we paid worth it? Only History will know for sure. My point is that THE war is with the Islamic radicals who want nothing less than the extinction of our way of life. Both Iraq and Afganistan are battlefields in that war, places that we can confront them other than in our airports, on our soil, etc... If the Taliban had not been harbouring Bin Ladin and his bunch we sure as heck wouldn't be in that rock of a country... This War unlike others does not have a distinct Country/Government that we can direct our efforts at like say Germany was in WW2. Right or wrong that is what it is and it confounds the heck out of our military leaders.
minimark has it correct in these two quotes: Hear is my take on it: This war with Islam started thousands of years ago, by a man named Ishmael: "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; " Anyone who is not Muslim is an "Infidel". Here is the definition of Infidel in Wiki: In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who does not recognize the one God (Allah) Here is a quote from the author, Bat Ye'or. She is was born a Egyptian: "The ideology of jihad was formulated by Muslim theologians from the eighth century onward. It separates humanity into two hostile blocks — the community of Muslims, and the infidels. According to this ideology, Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the whole world in order to apply Koranic laws. Hence, they have to wage a perpetual war against the infidels who refuse to submit. Its principle is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels. The first is a superior group, whose mission it is to rule the world. The second must submit." We are in a war with this, they not only want our lands but they want us to submit to their "Sharia law". This will not end until........???
ybr has a good point here: And then throw in our, "Commander in Chief", who apologizes for the atrocities that our county has commited :mad2:
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the reality of what Iraq was under Saddam. Islamic radicals were effectively suppressed under Saddam. There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam's secret service insured that. Saddam was an organized crime assasin before he rose to power. All he cared about was power. He was not a religious fundamentalist. He saw Al Qaeda as a threat to his power. The Bush/Cheney administration made up lies to try to link Iraq with 9/11. None of it was true. The war in Iraq was a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. With the chaos created by our invasion, Al Qaeda followers were able to get into the country and use it as a way to attack our troops. They were very happy that we invaded Iraq. It was a great recruiting tool for them. One of Al Qaeda's stated strategies is to bring us down economically. That is why the twin towers were a target on 9/11. They saw Iraq as a way to drain our resources. They set off bombs, disrupt the country, and we have to pour money and personnel into the country to try and bring order. The war in Iraq did not further our efforts to protect ourselves from Islamic fundamentalism. It did the opposite. It provided an environment where they could kill and injure thousands of Americans. We got rid of an evil dictator, but that had nothing to do with the war against Al Qaeda.
+1 for Robin....I was just about to post the same. As for 'taking it back' to the days the decision was made to go to Iraq, why do you think the way I do? I have a friend who was at the State Dept at the time and responsible for the region. He told me six months before we went into Iraq that 'this is no longer our Op. It's Rumsfeld's" and "Bush wants 9/11 pinned on Saddam, no matter the cost nor lack of evidence". Thing is, Bush was PO'ed Saddam tried to take out his pop in Kuwait. There was more to it than that (like fixing what many to believe to be a mistake with the Gulf War and Bush/41's decision NOT to go to Baghdad....based on Powell's urging back when he was still in uniform). The wool was NEVER pulled over my eyes. I disagreed with the decision for Iraq from the beginning and I'm not a Democrat.
During the hours/days after 9/11, Bush demanded his people connect Saddam to the attack. Why do YOU think he would do that?