- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Champs or the rest of "ilk" I've no idea, but as for myself you're wrong big time. Had they did this in 2005 it would've been a great victory, yet instead what has happened? OBL is still at large and far more influential than ever before.
Would I still be screaming foul about Iraq though? Absolutely. But that's because Iraq had nothing at all to do whatsoever with OBL.
The Bush admin is incompetent, those they should strike they don't, those they shouldn't they do. Those initiatives where they should take unilateral leadership actions they don't, those that they shouldn't they do. They do the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Of course, I'll give a bit here in that hind sight is 20/20. However that Iraq had anything to do with AQ and his lot was not a matter of debate at all within the admin. They were going in regardless of.
I've said it a million times here, I've supported the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. If taking out OBL meant going over into Pakistan so be it - afterall, aren't they our "allies"?
So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?
Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.