Sounds we're getting to the same place 2 different ways.
About the Afghanistan invasion, you can't make the same argument
because Afghanistan had verified terrorist camps and was openly
harboring them. They were asked to turn over Mr. Bin Laden, refused,
and were invaded. That is, it was without a doubt a part of the war
on terrorism.
Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with terrorism so we *can*
make the "zero to thousands" argument.
As to "disrupting and limiting" - it's both unmeasurable and
ineffective unless taken to the absolute extreme (build a wall around
the country and don't let anyone in or out), and even then prone to
failure (Timothy McVey).
Here's a rough track record of that tactic:
18th & 19th Century:
American Revolution: terrorists win.
French Revolution: terrorists win.
20th Century
Russian Revolution: terrorists win.
"Suez Crisis" (1954): terrorists win.
As long as someone is willing to kill to make their point we will
never, ever be able to stop it if we wish to remain a free country.
History has proven the only recourse is to retreat.
"winning hearts and minds", on the other hand, has worked in both
Northern Ireland and Turkey to name a few. It's not perfect, but it's
the only option with a modicum of success.
----- Original Message -----
From: G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:15:33 -0500
Subject: Re: The Republican Fear Machine is at it again
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your point and counterpoint are obvious. The same can be said about
Afghanistan, where zero American terrorist deaths occurred before
9/11...but it now has a "daily average" thanks to our troop presence
there.
Your next question is a valid one though, and I tend to agree with
your answer.
As for your last point, "winning hearts and minds" is most definitely
NOT a device i'd use towards measuring our success in the war on
terror. How well we disrupt and limit terrorists from attacking
Americans would be my measure of success, whether that makes France
happy or not.
I think the Iraq war is a failure because it hasn't curbed terrorism,
not because people who already hated America do so even more.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gruss Gott
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Republican Fear Machine is at it again
Hi Brian,
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
<snip>________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
