<p>I agree that our problem with Islamic extremism was/is bigger than bin Laden. But rather than looking around for wars to start, it would have been vastly better to pursue bin Laden to Bush’s original “dead or alive” conclusion. Attacking Iraq made no sense. It was not an extreme Islamic fundamentalist country and was, in fact, fairly secular. As murderously vile as Hussein was, he kept the religious fanatics under control and women could pursue careers and walk the streets of Bagdad without wearing head-to-toe burkas. Today, not so much. Plus, there was never anything to indicate a protective connection between Hussein and bin Laden, who supposedly had long-standing contempt for one another, nor between Iraq and al Queda. (Of course, NOW there is. We created that connection, along with a trillion new potential terrorists who loathe the “Great Satan” more with each passing day. Oh, yes. I feel safer.) Do you really think we can solve our problems with Islamic fundamentalism by attacking each and every country in which they live?</p>
<p>My family is Jewish. My sister-in-law lives on the West Bank. Her two teenaged daughters are presently serving in the Israeli military. I agree with you that an enemy to Israel is an enemy to the United States. However, launching wars against those enemies will not make Israel a safer place for my nieces to live.</p>
<p>Hindoo: “Attacking Iraq made no sense”</p>
<p>Iraq is a perfect place to seed democracy in the Arab Middle East. That is the best reason to be in Iraq. Hussein was no friend to the US. I recall that he supported a program where money was sent to the families of terrorists. That is enough for me to bring down the regime. One check to even one terrorist’s family. Using chemical weapons against the Kurds? That could also have been the only reason I would have needed to enter that country. We should have gone in earlier to help the European Jews a half century ago. We should never make that mistake again, in Europe, or anywhere else. </p>
<p>Hussein was playing games with the world community, provocatively avoiding inspections again and again. It was well within his control to avoid what happened. He chose poorly.</p>
<p>Liberals wanted to chat, to sit on our hands and mull things over. To wait until the problem got even bigger (maybe a massive event on our own soil). History is a good teacher, and history tells me, “NO WAY”. </p>
<p>Obama thinks we should sit down and chat with the folks who have been sending suicide bombers into Israel. Common sense, experience, and (again) history dictate that is a naive and dangerous approach.</p>
<p>I am not for war, and I have much sympathy for the Palistinians and all Arab peoples. But the terrorists in the mix, and those who in any way sponsor them? The movie Munich - that is the real world. That is how terrorists and those who support them need to be handled. I am against violence, but I also know that when you are dealing with pure evil, you put an end to it before many more die. There is no other choice. </p>
<p>And when brave men are sent out into the night to risk their lives so our children can sleep safely in their beds, the last thing we should do is spend our days protesting the effort in which they are engaged (thereby encouraging the enemy to fight on, ensuring that more young military lives are lost).</p>
<p>A democratic Iraq can be a critical victory for Israel and the United States (and for the people of Iraq). It would be the greatest thing after Israel that ever happened to that region. Democracy is the very best system of government in the world. The gift of liberty is one that we must always be committed to bestow in every region of this planet. It is necessary to our survival as well.</p>
<p>“Plus, there was never anything to indicate a protective connection between Hussein and bin Laden, who supposedly had long-standing contempt for one another, nor between Iraq and al Queda.”</p>
<p>Hindoo,</p>
<p>Your problem is that you believe both the headlines reported in the mainstream media plus the talking points provided by the Dems (which is a bit of a redundant statement).</p>
<p>Here is what a detailed report of captured Iraqi documents said:
[Iraqi</a> Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism](<a href=“http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html]Iraqi”>Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism)
It then goes on with 5 volumes of details to back this up - all verified from actual documents. To continue the notion that Saddam would not have collaborated with terrorists against the US is just a bogus claim that the Dems want to continue to perpetuate.</p>
<p>Good post fundingfather.</p>
<p>"As murderously vile as Hussein was, he kept the religious fanatics under control and women could pursue careers and walk the streets of Bagdad without wearing head-to-toe burkas. "</p>
<p>This is another revisionist history as propogated by the Dems. Perhaps burkas weren’t the rule of the day but that is trivial compared with one’s life:</p>
<p>
[Green</a> Left - IRAQ: Women murdered for trying to survive](<a href=“http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/427/22415]Green”>http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/427/22415)</p>
<p>Iraqi Women Brutalized by Saddam
[ifeminists.com</a> > editorial > Iraqi Women Brutalized by Saddam](<a href=“http://www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2003/0211.html]ifeminists.com”>ifeminists.com > editorial > Iraqi Women Brutalized by Saddam)</p>
<p>fundingfather and spideygirl–You are both articulate in your arguments, but I’m afraid I’ve been too brainwashed by the mainstream media and the Democratic party to agree with you on this one. … Regarding Israel, there isn’t an Arab country out there that wouldn’t prefer to see it gone. And as for harboring terrorists, I seem to recall that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were responsible for most of the 9/11 hijackers. Shouldn’t we bomb those countries, too? Start a war with them? Saudi Arabia is jam-packed with fundamentalist extremists and the royal family has overtly encouraged their existence for years, while denying women the right to drive a car, etc. I think we should consider attacking them. Oops! I forgot–we’re addicted to the oil they’re slowly strangling us to death with. Gotta love those Saudis. Personally, they seem only marginally preferable to Saddam Hussein. They haven’t gassed masses of their population … yet … but they do chop off hands and stone people to death. Wouldn’t we make the world a better place if we simply attacked Saudi Arabia and “planted the seed” of democracy there? Where does it stop?</p>
<p>“And as for harboring terrorists, I seem to recall that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were responsible for most of the 9/11 hijackers. Shouldn’t we bomb those countries, too?”</p>
<p>Well, Hindoo, congratulations on hitting the trifecta of most commonly heard anti-war slogans. As you will recall, Saudi Arabia was not “harboring” any terrorists and in fact had expelled bin Laden from their country. I have no love for Saudi Arabia, but to hold the country responsible for the acts of some of their citizens we would also have to hold California and Great Britain responsible for their citizens’ contributions to Jihad.</p>
<p>Tell me again what my “trifecta” of anti-war slogans is? Incidentally, I’m not ashamed to be against the idea of war.</p>
<p>“Plus, there was never anything to indicate a protective connection between Hussein and bin Laden, who supposedly had long-standing contempt for one another, nor between Iraq and al Queda.”</p>
<p>"As murderously vile as Hussein was, he kept the religious fanatics under control and women could pursue careers and walk the streets of Bagdad without wearing head-to-toe burkas. "</p>
<p>“And as for harboring terrorists, I seem to recall that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were responsible for most of the 9/11 hijackers. Shouldn’t we bomb those countries, too?”</p>
<p>Everyone should be against war - unless waging it would result in fewer deaths than not waging it. In the last 75 years the act of not waging war until it was too late or prematurly turning from the battlefield has cost more lives than war itself.</p>
<p>Let me see if I understand you correctly. If I say something you disagree with, it’s a “slogan.” If someone agrees with you, then they’re acknowledging the “truth.” Gotcha! I’ll try to remember that.</p>
<p>No, there are slogans that I agree with, just not the ones that you have used, which are demonstrably false.</p>
<p>What do you think of Scott McClelland’s new book? From excerpts I’ve seen/heard, he appears to be pretty negative regarding how Bush and his cronies got us into Iraq.</p>
<p>
I’m not following your logic Spideygirl. You are saying that the Jewish controlled media is purposely allowing anti-war propaganda dominate the news even though it’s in their interests to promote the war because that’s better for Israel?</p>
<p>Of course the way I see it, the New York Times and most of the other “liberal” media bought the Bush propaganda about Iraq hook line and sinker.</p>
<p>“It sickens me that so much of the media is controlled by Jewish people, and so many allow one-sided, anti-war propaganda to dominate the screens and pages. Propaganda which directly harms the future of a nation which is their ethnic and religious fatherland.”</p>
<p>I guess we ought to consult you before we decide what’s good for us and our nation. I think that a free press that aims to reveal the truth, good or bad, serves the interests of both the US and Israel. In fact, I wish our journalists had been a lot more aggressive and skeptical over the last seven years. But you know, I’m a Jew, and you’re the expert on what I ought to think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right, Islamic fundamentalism is a huge threat. And that is the most important reason why the Iraq war was a horrible idea: by creating a cesspool of near-civil war, constant violence, poverty, illness and death in Iraq, America has ensured the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations you speak of a reliable pool of recruits far larger than any they had before, for at least some time to come. At least Saddam, for all his faults, was a secular leader whose support of terror couldn’t have brought it to anywhere near the levels it is at now in Iraq.</p>
<p>All that’s been accomplished in Iraq is to turn the popular opinion of a new generation of young Arabs strongly against America. This will bear dark fruit for years to come, unfortunately.</p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see how the Bush/Iraq War supporters deal with the fact that one of their own (previously one of their own) is calling a spade a spade when it comes to Iraq:</p>
<p>[Former</a> press secretary’s book bashes Bush - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-28-1035775403_x.htm]Former”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-28-1035775403_x.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a popular notion but unfortunately doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny. The 90’s were filled with terrorist attacks against the US, culminating in the 2001 attack. We were not in Iraq at that time and yet bin Laden had no trouble recruiting thousands of jihadists for his training camps. So, to say that now suddenly we have created something new is a bit disengenuous.</p>
<p>Also, immediately after the 9/11 attacks al Qaeda was a very popular organizaation throughout the Muslim world. If your thesis were true, that our involvement in Iraq is creating more terrorists one would assume that this would be reflected in al Qaeda’s popularity. Instead, the opposite is true, al Qaeda is experiencing significant decreases in its popularity around the Muslim world.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that 9/11 proved that it only takes a small handful of jihadists to create significant devastation. No matter what we do to placate the Muslim fundamentalists, they will always be able to come up with enough hate-filled followers to attack soft, civillian targets. Our only way to deal with this is to keep these people away from any access to weapons that would allow them to do more catastrophic damage and to step up our intelligence gathering capabilities to disrupt plots as they develop. The Democratic position would weaken us on both of these fronts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is hard to know exactly whether Al Qaeda has been de-fanged or is re-doubling for more horrific attacks, whatever their general popularity may be. But it is quite clear that the popularity – and respect for the US – has plummeted greatly. This is the direct result of undertaking an expensive war that weakens us, costs us an arm and a leg into incredible debt, and that was strategically stupid for us to undertaken in the first place.</p>
<p>Actually, Scott McClellan said it well:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Republican position has weakened us terribly on all these fronts that FundingF suggests rather obliviously that the Democratic party would.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please recall that Scott McClellan was a “spokesman” - he is not an authority on much of anything. So, besides its ability to sell a few books to those who are Bush obsessed, his opinion on international relations and the necessity of war really doesn’t hold a lot of weight in my book.</p>