On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:48:33 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:


"Leadfoot" had written...[regarding the invasion of Iraq not really
being part of the war against terrorism]:


Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

To which Scott Ferrin confessed the following:

Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.

Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
half a second. You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
OPPOSE it? The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors. If nothing
else he's going to take himself out of the gene pool.






But the US is faced with the prospect of killing several thousand
muslim followers of MaS...folks willing to die for their religion
and/or are really ****ed off that US forces still occupy Iraq.

These folks know nothing about the RAND study that shows we need
almost 500,000 combat troops/police/civil affairs bodies and roughly a
decade to turn Iraq into the "cradle of democracy" in the muslim
world. See:
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...3/nation1.html

Perhaps you simply believe we are in a war against Islam. In your
opinion is the seige of Najaf a clever ploy to gather all muslims in
one place where the US can kill them?

I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.


How hard is it to run home with your tail between your legs? We all
know that's what he'll do. No, his toughest task will be trying to
blame the subsequent rise in terrorism on Bush but I suspect with
followers like yourself at least he won't have any problems selling
it.






Robey