That's the FUD logic, though, used to justify troops in Iraq. Mr.
Bush will frequently say that the war is worthwhile since we're
fighting the terrorists there.
The counter point is that prior to Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq there
were zero American terrorist deaths in Iraq - now they're averaging
one per day.
So the question is, is that a useful strategy to minimizing terrorism
in the US, or is it just poking sticks at a hornet's nest that wasn't
a problem before we started messing with it.
My answer would be that we're no safer because of the Iraq invasion.
If fact, we're in more danger. This is because prior to Iraqi
invasion opinion polls showed most of world (including the Arab world)
supported the US and the invasion of Afghanistan (about 80% supported
- source The Economist).
After the Iraq invasion approx 60% of the world is against us and near
90% of the Arab world.
This means that if you use "winning hearts and minds" as a measure
towards the goal of winning the war on terrorism, we're losing it.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:36:26 -0500
Subject: Re: The Republican Fear Machine is at it again
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's being pretty silly. Never has Bush implied, nor would anyone,
that ALL terrorists reside in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or in any ONE
place).
As for the idea of "taking the fight to them", I think there is some
validity in that. When our troops are blowing up terror camps in
Afghanistan, killing known terrorists, disrupting their activities,
and generally making life difficult for them in their home
country....this seems to be a good strategy as opposed to waiting for
them to try another attack.
This is very clear in Afghanistan....but in Iraq? Just who's fight
are we fighting, and to whom are we taking it? Not so clear.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gruss Gott
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: The Republican Fear Machine is at it again
<snip>
----- Original Message -----
This is the same logic that says that since we're fighting the
terrorists in Iraq we don't have to "fight them on the street of
America".
So why have the Department of Homeland Security or the TSA? Why even
bother with security? After all, we're fighting the terrorists in
Iraq so, according to Mr. Bush, we needn't worry about security in
America.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
