Leadfoot wrote:

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea.

Its impossible to prove that statement is factually correct, in fact, according
to the liberals there are no foreign fighters in Iraq indicating an increase in
radical Islamist fundamentalists. Unless you've taken some kind of Islamic
fundamentalists census, you're just guessing.

We need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab world

I see, you mean a more sensative war on terrorism. I disagree.

This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses.

You mean the long term consequences like an Iraq harbored terrorist getting his
hands on an Iraqi built chemical weapon? I agree.

Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.

No one said the war on terror was going to be easy. Well...actually it could be
easy but more costly for U.S. citizens.

I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November

Trust me, a "more sensative war on terror" will attract people to al Queada in
droves.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"