Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Pangloss, explain something: just where in your (poorer than mine) thinking is any consideration that our foes hit at us repeatedly, and lethally, over the span of eighteen years before we replied to any effect? Since you seem to need a reminder, these were Beirut 1983, WTC 1993, USS Cole, the embassies, and finally 9/11. Our longsufferingness gives us enormous virtue, my friend. They woke the giant, and they better own that.
|
While I do not disagree in general with your point about us having been repeatedly struck with little to no response, I still need to know where the unequivocal link to Iraq is, here. Don't get me wrong...Saddam was scum, and I'm glad he's dead. But aren't we now going to have to kill *every* despot that rises to take his place? I mean, no one seriously believes that there's going to be a kinder, gentler Muslim world now that he's gone, right? Right?
Shouldn't we be kicking the snot out of the guys who actually claimed responsibility? Wouldn't we be doing a better job of that if we were out of Iraq and crawling up Bin Laden's ass with a Tomahawk right now?
We're done in Iraq, we need to go. It isn't stable with us there, and it isn't going to be stable when we're gone. Meanwhile, the guys who actually said they pulled off 9-11 are still crawling around the Middle Eastern baseboards like the cockroaches they are.