Sounds good in theory. But how do you use military force against thoughts? It's like saying your going to use the military in the war against theft. It's really a stupid concept. Potential terrorists are scattered throughout the world. We can't read minds. They don't wear t-shirts that say "I'm going to be a terrorist." How do you use military force against that, short of killing everyone?
The use of military force to fight terrorism means targeting specific groups/figures that either practice or sponsor terrorist activity. We have done this by taking the initiative in places that we know for a fact are involved in terrorism, such as Afghanistan like you said, but a
fact that is widely dismissed, is that Sadaam Hussein supported terrorism.
Just because we didn't find weps doesn't mean we didn't find torture rooms, rape rooms, and mass graves.
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
If this doesn't describe the regime that was in place when the United States Military invaded Iraq then I don't know what does.
They were indeed "identifiable targets"
The nazis were not a concept or an act. They were a political party that controlled a nation and its military forces. They wore shirts that said "I'm a nazi" -- remember those red black and white armbands?
Yes it most definitely was a concept, hence the term "Nazism" (it was also a political party that was based on that concept, just like my party of choice is rooted in "conservatism"). You say that Nazism was not an act, but I would briefly define Nazism as
1. The act of rapid, state sponsored genocide, carried out in order to create an Aryan race.
and
2. The concept of nationally encouraged racism, preaching blame for all of the world's problems on the Jews, and aspiring to exterminate those that did not fit Nazi Germany's "superman" Aryan race ambitions.
It is true that they were much easier to identify and locate, but that fact is nothing that should discourage us from taking the offensive against them. If terrorists were more isolated from eachother, it would be more difficult to identify and locate them, but they do exist in certain large orginizations such as al-qaeda. In addition, we do know which countries they are more likely to take harbor in.
But I'm not suggesting appeasement. I'm suggesting we fix our mistake. When you make a mistake, the right thing to do is to apologize, and pay for the damage it caused. Bush made a mistake invading Iraq based on WMDs. We'd all be better off if he acted like a man and did the right thing. But he won't because he (and his apologists) are too proud.
Bush did not make a mistake by invading Iraq. Why would you say that Bush made that mistake when many Reps and Dems had access to the same questionable intelligence. Also I have to mention that they might have had weapons and moved them, but lets not get into that. We do know that Saddam had committed extreme crimes, and that he did intend to gather weps. The only anti-war voices that I consider having a valid point, (not that I think they are right, but they make a fair point) are the ones that question whether the American lives being lost now are worth saving Iraq from the Insurgency. The anti-war voices that claim that going into Iraq was a mistake are just being ignorant, considering the position that Iraq was in before we invaded. By not recognizing the progress, they are the ones being "too proud". And the anti-war voices that question Bush's manhood, simply need to grow up.
Attacking Iraq for what terrorist did would be like attacking Spain for what the nazis did.
This commonly played card in the anti-war deck, is funnier when Zimbabwe is used instead of Spain. Its just more random.
Anyway, we did not attack Iraq for what Osama did. At no point did the Bush administration say that was the plan. In fact you even said that we invaded Iraq, "based on WMD's". Please pick one or the other.
Making the first move against terror-friendly nations is part of the strategy, but we did attack Iraq simply for "what the terrorists did"
Then how do we reduce "terrorism," given that it is not a nation or an armed force or even a political party in charge of a government (well it is becoming more that way). Terrorism is an act -- a criminal act. It is usually committed by those associated with radical Islamic causes. It seems logical to me that if we want to reduce the threat of terrorism, we should concentrate on reducing the number of people who would join and support radical Islamic causes. How do we do that?
By attacking terrorists, and countries that welcome it, we discourage more people from falling to terrorism. Similar to Viet Nam. Although we did not accomplish our goal there, we did contribute to sending a message which helped to discourage communism.
I think that the concept of bringing the threat to terrorism, instead of letting them bring it to us, is just too simple for some people to trust.
Look at the evidece. I spelled it out earlier. Terrorist activity in Iraq has gone from (reported) a couple camps in the mountains of Northern Iraq to a full scale resistance throughout the entire country.
The Saddamist insurgency took time to develop but our presence over there is not what caused it. Leaving immediately after dissmanteling his regime would have only been the difference between what is going on now, and a simple re-claiming of Iraq by Saddam loyalists.
Chess, keep reppin'........BUT WHY IN GOD'S NAME DO YOU NUMBER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR POSTS?? lol
