[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
why iraq? why not? which choice would have satisified you? my guess is none. ONE of the points of going into iraq was that they sponsor terrorism. they always have.
since 9/11 was a terroist action carried out by arab-muslims and iraq is terrorist sponsoring arab-muslim state, i say ‘why the fuck not!’ can you imagine if bush said, “we just got bombed on 9/11. for this reason, i’m going into darfur!”
my point is that NOTHING short of doing NOTHING will satisfy you people. [/quote]
Afghanistan!!! THAT’s the place we should have gotten into on September 12 and should still be in. THAT’s where we should have brought our 170,000 troops, most of whom we could have left there afterward to be our quick-reaction force in the region. THAT’s where we should have concentrated the bulk of our force and wealth and energy and shown both how unstoppable our army is and how much better things can be for the people of the Middle East and South Asia if they reject the extremists and engage with the world.
THAT’s where we should have locked down Tora Bora and killed or captured every member of the group that attacked us and their Taliban protectors. THEN we could have dealt with Iraq/Iran/anyone else from a position of strength and moral superiority. Instead we’ve given our enemies a template for how to bog down our military and sap our will to fight and we’ve drastically increased the influence and visibility of the Iranian regime, which (according to many knowledgeable analysts – Robert Baer, etc.) has long been the most dangerous on earth.