Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
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.

Oh please is right. Your immediate dismissal of my argument is based on the
fact that you have absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in Iraq who
was directly responsible for terrorism in the US.

You didn't put forth an argument, other than make an unsubstantiated claim that
"Iraq was about racism."



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.

Al Queda is in Iraq? Where? In Hussein's palace? In the streets of Baghdad?
Cause that's pretty much all we got.

Apparently you never had heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.



The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for Suicide
Bombers in Israel.

I believe Israel is an ally of the United States.



Afghanistan was attacked because that was where the enemy was hiding and
organizing. Instead of focusing our resources on the war there, though, GW
attempted to divert attention and win popularity with "a quick and easy win"
in Iraq. His superego let him think that he could walk in and finish the job
in a week and move on back to Afghanistan, and everyone would think he was a
hero for it

And Iraq was attacked for numerous reasons. Depending on far distances and
oceans to protect America from threatening regimes, no matter what their name,
was no longer seen as an option. Iraq had been breaking numerous UN resolutions
and also a cease-fire. Numerous intelligence agencies, American and from around
the globe were pointing to Iraq as building mass weapons. Iraq (and not anyone
else) ended the war cease-fire.






All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is
testament to your belief, regardless of what you actually said.

I certainly "tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan" and never said
otherwise. Your remark is a strawman.



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.

My point is that Iraq was not an immediate threat, and we had many more
immediate threats that we should have dealt with first, including North
Korea.

Noboydy said it was an immediate threat, least of all me. How would you have
dealt with North Korea? Hopefully not in a "racist" way!



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.

Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

Ask Zarqawi and Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah



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?

Because this country, including the Bush administration, didn't take them
seriously until 9/11.

Perhaps, but the Bush administration was just getting started in 2001, and
cabinet appointees had been stalled earlier in the year as well.



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!

I don't know you well enough to call you names.

Didn't stop you from using the "racism" card!



I personally don't favor brutal murdering dictators. But I don't believe it
is in this country's best interests to focus our limited military resources
on distractions that are being managed by our allies when we have more
important and immediate business to resolve.

Hmm., I didn't see you complain about the previous administration bombing Baghdad
in 1998 with more bombs than the 1991 gulf war! Perhaps I just missed that. Did
you object to Israel's aerial bombing of Iraq circa 1981? Imagine what the
results would be today if military action had not been taken.



Do you believe we should send troops to Cuba to get Castro now that he's
down? After all, he's a brutal murdering dictator, too. I hear there are lots
of brutal murdering dictators in African countries too, like Rwanda. Maybe
you believe we should send troops to the outer boundaries of the planet to
police all the brutal murdering dictators out there? Perhaps you should
enlist so you can go out and take care of this ASAP.

I believe that John Kennedy did send ships around Cuba. Nowadays, he hasn't
broken any major UN agreements or cease-fires, that I'm aware of. S. Hussein's
Iraq did. If you want to go into Rwanda, perhaps we can put that on the to-do
list.



I believe we have limited military resources, and we better start using them
wisely. IMHO Iraq was not a demonstration of prudent use of military
resources. I'm not disappointed with some of the results, certainly. But
because of poor planning and poor use of resources by this administration,
we've got unfinished jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially North
Korea as well. We would have been better off letting the UN Inspectors play
cat and mouse with Hussein for a few more years

Can't do that if they are kicked out of country.

until we demolished Al Queda
in Afghanistan, and put the face of fear back into the terrorists for f^*%ing
with the USA, whose concentrated powers are impregnable.

IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't do
things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Again, what would you had done to prevent "unfinished jobs" in N Korea? The
previous administration had attempted to make deals with a dictator there, which
we've learned from experience doesn't work. So the "peaceful" nuclear
engineering soon became another war machine, predicatable to many but not the
then President. So now we have to deal with that.