Originally posted by Haggis:
I think you might be confusing deterrence with action. The deterrence is the direct threat Bush made against the countries that harbor terrorists. The action was the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
If a Iranian supplied nuke is detonated in Baltimore by terrorists, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Bush will treat it as an act of war and will attack Iran, probably with nukes. The same holds true with NK and Pakistan.
Given that reasoning, how did Iraq abet al Qaeda with regards to the 9/11 attacks, or any other terrorist attack on the U.S. or its interests? We don't even have proof Saddam sent the customary $25,000 reward to any of the hijacker's relatives. While we're at it, I read elsewhere on the bbb a suggestion that Saddam's subversion of the OFF program
aided al Qaeda?!! How?!!
Also originally posted by Haggis:
I have to admit to some perplexity when I hear people complain about Bush’s aggressiveness on one hand and then point to the fact that he hasn’t invaded North Korea and Iran as a sign of weakness.
I think you are mistaking current inaction as current policy vis-a-vis Iran and NK. I’ve commented before that NK is more of a problem for China, Russia, Japan and S. Korea, although armed with a multistage rocket that can reach the U.S. moves the threat closer to home.
Don't we traditionally view a threat to an ally as a threat to us? And don't we currently guard S. Korea against the threat of a North Korean invasion? Why would we be any less motivated to guard South Korea(or Japan, for that matter) against a nuclear threat?
Once again, originally posted by Haggis:
I think you are going to get your “wish” concerning Iran. The U.S. will have to do something before Israel does, and I think Israel might attack Iran before the end of the year, so our horizon for action is narrowing.
I am completely in support of any action taken by the U.S. in the pursuit and prosecution of terrorists. I believe I've always been clear about that. Iraq is a widely-known sponsor of Ilsamic extremist terrorism, most notably the home of Hezbollah. We know they harbored 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks. We know they are conducting nuclear weapons research. If we apply the logic proferred by the preemptive strike policy, they should have been our second target, right after Afghanistan. The only logical conclusion I can draw is that we aren't really into warmongering to combat terrorism. We do it for the money.
And on top of that, Haggis originally posted this, too:
He’s dead. Considering his enormous ego for recognition (i.e. the video he made after 9/11 claiming credit) and the fact that we haven’t had any conclusive proof that he is still alive leads me to the conclusion that he’s dead. Unfortunately, like Hitler, we’re going to hear reports of UBL sightings for most of the remainder of our lives. Some people are harder to kill than others. Look at Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, even after showing their corpses on TV, some Iraqis still thought they were still alive.
Sorry, that's good enough for me. UBL's an important enough figure to us, in more than one respect, that we need to unequivocally know/prove he's dead.
1) He's World Enemy #1. The American public deserves closure on the issue if he is in fact dead.
2) The psychological impact his death would have on the international Islamic extremist terrorist community would be fundamental and enormous, right? My perception is Islamic extremists view their spiritual leaders as divinely sent to lead them. Wouldn't the publicity of the terminal prosecution of one their leaders have a negative net impact on their motivations and efforts? Like maybe cause some of them to believe that maybe Allah isn't on their side?
Additionally, I don't feel the risk of inflaming jihad by rendering him a martyr would/should overrule the necessity of ensuring he pay the full price for his deeds.
All of the above applies to Zawahiri and Zarqawi(sp?), too.
Yes, this too was originally posted by Haggis:
I wasn’t aware of any “ties” between Bush and the Bin Ladens other than the rumors about some connections between Bush 41 and UBL’s father. Bush critic Richard Clark has confirmed that it was he who authorized the family members of Bin Laden to leave the country. The FBI tried to keep them in the country but was over-ruled. I think that was a mistake.
I am concerned about the relationship between Bush and the House of Saud and hope that he gets tougher with them in the next four years.
Michael Moore claimed in F911 that the Bush and Bin Laden families had their hands in each other's pockets, with regards to the oil business, to the extent the Bin Laden family had invested heavily in GWB's failed oil exploration business, among other cross-investments. I would have to believe that, even in light of 1st amendment protections, that if any of that information was slanderous, that Michael Moore would have been USA PATRIOT ACT-ed, and the movie would have been pulled out of the theaters.
<small>[ 10-11-2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>
