The solution involves stomping on the Terrorists like Roaches when they appear, and helping the rest of the Muslim world to enter the 21st Century so that the Roaches no longer have a place to hide.
I don't have a problem with that.
But you still haven't connected the dots. You're leaping where your President pointed, not connecting dots. Show me how invading Iraq was the most effective and cost effective way to go about that. I can see Iraq in the sense that Saddam was generally considered to be a monster so we could be expected to get a pass from the world when we invaded there. But for some reason the world didn't give us a pass. So, then, why Iraq? Seems to me that taking over Saudi Arabia would have been more consistent with our objective of getting the terrorists who would do us harm. After all, that's the Wahhabi homeland. That's the country that all Muslims visit. And they have bunches of oil, to boot. If we want to model democracy in the ME, that's a better choice.
How is invading Iraq the best use of our time, effort, and money in terms of protecting ourselves from terrorists? That is my question. Can't get an answer, I think, because there isn't a good one.
You can wax poetic about weakness and multiculturalism and the glories of our system. You'll get no argument from me. We're on the same side. But none of that speaks to why it makes sense to have put most of our eggs in the Iraq basket.
Mexico is moving in, and saying, "Whats for Breakfast, Amigo?" I don't see any reason to believe we can stop it.
Maybe we should invade Iraq. That seems to be our strategy du administrtion. I'll bet the PR boyz could have millions of Americans believing that, too. <ggggggg> |
