Hasn't Bush spurred terrorism through his ill-planned invasion of Iraq?
Spurred it, or change the focus of its targeting?
Is it possible that, by forcing the Jihadists to focus on "defending" what they perceived as territory that should have naturally aligned with them (even if over time), they have fewer resources to use in attacking the US?
Furthermore, by striking out and forcing the Jihadists to divert resources towards defending their "home turf", might they think twice about directly attacking the US mainland and provoking the wrath of the American people?
Y'see.. these guys aren't stupid. They've made some mistakes, but they're learning from them. They obviously miscalculated the response of the American people to the 9/11 attacks. But they now understand that the last thing they want to do is continue "waking the sleeping dragon" (as Yamamoto once put it). In fact, they want the American people to disengage themselves from continuing our presence in the Mid-East so that the Jihadists no longer have any organized resistance.
In fact, they want the American people to just become indifferent to what goes on in the Mid-East. To essentially isolate ourselves from what goes on in the center of the Islamic world. They want us to throw in the towell and leave the regional governments in mistrust of American will power.
Hasn't Bush spurred the rise to power of a Fundamentalist Regime in Iran through his ill-planned invasion of Iraq and his threatening and demeaning public statements toward Iran?
Which in turn has increased Iran's support and funding of terrorism?
Absolutely not. That fundamentalist regime has been in power for several decades now. They've been secretly pursuing the nuclear fuel cycle for over 18 years. And the IRGC has essentially remained the dominating power in the country. Anytime the reformists have asserted themselves, the IRGC and "Supreme Guide" has cut them off at the knees.
You're asking such a stupid question is like trying to claim that the League of Nation's condemnation of the occupation of the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia was the provocation that cause Hitler's power to be increased. That's just plainly illogical.
What IS TRUE is that in the face of such confrontation, the hardliner elements of the government are required to publicly present themselves in order to justify to their own people why they are being so aggressive.
So what you should be asking yourself what these despotic governments have been doing to escalate tensions. And then ask yourself what the result would be if the US and other nations were using the kind of aggressive rhetoric that Ahmadinejad is using (like proclaimning a forthcoming war of annihilation against Israel).
RMF.. your inane belief that you can appease megalo-maniacs is the path that has led to the deaths of millions of lives. And what your democrats, such as Murtha, and Kusinich(sic) are demanding, such as cutting the funds for the war in Iraq, is a blatant declaration of withdrawal, if not surrender.
And this is not going to lead to peace. This is going to lead to millions of people living under religious oppression and global conflict. And this is all going to happen while your democratic congress wastes its time engaging in distractive and humiliating political witch hunts that will undermine American will, undermine American foreign policy, and given the Jihadists a free rein in the region.
Because that's all your democrats have to offer. They know there is no easy solution to the flaws in our strategy in the mid-east. And as Mark Steyn put it the other day, why are they suggesting phased withdrawal? How can victory be achieved by unilaterally announcing withdrawals? And why would the enemy feel compelled to compromise when they know all they have to do is wait you out??
If anything encourages terrorism, it is displaying weakness in the face of a blatant threat.
You want to encourage a wild animal to attack you? Run..
Hawk |
