Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
...
No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.



Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was attacked (I
know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide bombers were funded by
Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.



We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.



these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to see a
war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges above.



Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.



Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why wasn't the
enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?



To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal murdering
dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population control-- not
being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a Nazi and a sexist
too!