• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Your Forgein Policy

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Imagine that you won the 2004 election and that you took over for Bush in January 2005 (I know that this is not the case), what would your forgien policy be? Lets imagine that congress agrees with everything you do however unrealistic that is.
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mine is simple, remove all American bases from around the world except from Kuwait, because it is needed for the war effort in Iraq. Once Iraq is able to protect itself the Kuwaiti base will be shut down.

With that I will then move on to Iraq and do the same thing that Bush is doing and just teach Iraqis to do everything from the military to having teachers and doctors brought in to teach and medicate. I would handle the insergents the same way just take them out where ever they are. The only thing that I will do different is to ask the UN for aid to help the rebuilding of Iraq, the same plan applys for Afghanistan. Then I will have the CIA setup a news channel like Al Jazeera, but it will broadcast fair news both things that American does good and things that could have gone better.

Moving to Israel and Palestine, I would tell Israel to leave the West Bank but only when a International peacekeeping force has moved in to help set up infastructure and police. The International peacekeepers would move into Gaza ASAP with the same mission. This force will not be American led and it would contain a minimal amount of Americans. I will try to get as many Middle Eastern countries into it as possiable except Israelis.

On to Africa, I would forgive their debts only if they forgive any money we owe them and I will give financial aid to them. If a leader of one of those countries does not give the money to every group of people then he will be pressured into resigning and democratic elections will be held.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Too many presidents (including our current one) are ideologues when it comes to foreign policy. The truth is that no two countries (or groups) are the same, nor does one single foreign policy work equally well in every case.

Of the countries the United States is primarily interested in, my foreign policy would be as follows:

IRAQ - Immediate, unconditional withdrawal. We cannot win this war, but we can cut our losses now by withdrawing. The withdrawal should be complete in no more than four months. We will maintain diplomatic relationships with the Iraqi government, and if by some miracle it survives, that's great. More realistically, it will probably collapse within a year of our withdrawal. If the country fragments into three, we will have no choice but to recognize their independence, if not the individual governments.

IRAN - The Islamic Revolution was 25 years ago, and there seems little possibility that the democrats will overthrow the government at this point. Unfortunately, the bad guys have won in Iran. The desire for a nuclear Iran is not just a desire that the ayatollahs have; there truly is a popular consensus for nuclear power. I think it's time for the United States to reestablish diplomatic and economic relations with Iran and end the travel ban, hopefully in exchange for international inspectors being permitted into Iran's nuclear facilities. As Michael Corleone says, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." We'll be able to pressure Iran on human rights, terrorism, and nuclear policy more as a friend than an enemy.

NORTH KOREA - Maintain a relatively hard line, but do not walk away from the table. The North Koreans have violated every nuclear treaty they have ever signed, and the one from last week is probably no different (they balked at the terms within 24 hours of signing it). We should be working to cause the demise of the North Korean government, and the best way of doing that is to open up their markets and culture to the outside world. In that concentration camp, people know nothing of the outside world, and so a revolution isn't likely unless they can see the alternatives available. We should allow some trade into North Korea.

CHINA - We should not view China as an adversary that needs to be beaten into submission. We should view them as a partner in planning the future of the world. While it's fair to pressure them on human rights and Taiwan, it's not fair to protest every time they want to buy an American corporation. We should encourage them to continue their economic reforms, as they allow more Chinese people access to more information. It's conceivable that China could evolve into a democracy within 20 years, or have a bloodless revolution. We should work to encourage that outcome without treating China as an enemy.

RUSSIA - Vladimir Putin is a huge threat to democratic reforms in Russia. We should harden our stance with Russia somewhat and work to pull more countries out of Russia's sphere of influence, but we should not inflame tensions to the point of threatening our oil imports or nuclear trafficking policy.

FRANCE AND GERMANY - We need to stop treating valuable allies as enemies. This is a ridiculous policy that does no one any good, other than the egos of the people currently in charge in Washington.

JAPAN - We should encourage Japan to build its military and amend its constitution to allow deployment abroad. Japan is our most useful ally in the world.

UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA - Maintain our excellent relations with these nations by continuing our joint military exercises and sharing of intelligence.

CUBA - End the embargo and travel ban, but continue to take a diplomatic hardline against Castro. After he dies, we should work to ensure a democratic government replaces him, including military intervention if necessary.

VENEZUELA - We need to take a more hardline stance against Hugo Chavez, but we should certainly not cut off economic ties as we rely heavily on Venezuelan oil. This is one case where sticks work better than carrots; Hugo Chavez is an irrational leader who is incapable of weighing the best interests of his country (or even himself).

ZIMBABWE - Robert Mugabe is a horrible despot who is helping to ruin the economies of ALL of southern Africa. Instead of all the aid money we're spending to line the pockets of dictators, we should spend the money helping Morgan Tsvangiari and other oppostion leaders.

PAKISTAN - As much as we may have to hold our noses to do so, we need to actually help Musharraf strengthen his grip on power. He is unwilling or unable to take a firm stance against terrorism while his country remains so volatile. We also need to make a guarantee of some sort that we will not change this position after our terrorism campaign draws to a close, as he has no real incentive to help us catch members of al-Qaeda at this time.

INDIA - Our long term interests lie with India. We should help Pakistan and India broker a peaceful compromise to the Kashmir conflict so that there will not be any future wars. We should also encourage India to continue its economic reforms, and strengthen our military alliance with the largest democracy in the world.

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE - The Israeli pullout from Gaza is a good start to the peace process, but there will be no easy solution. If the Palestinians are able to maintain law and order in Gaza and prevent acts of terrorism, Israel should reward them with partial withdraw from the West Bank as well. Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, but it should not inflame the situation by responding to every suicide bombing with a massive invasion into Palestine.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Kandahar said:
IRAQ - Immediate, unconditional withdrawal. We cannot win this war, but we can cut our losses now by withdrawing. The withdrawal should be complete in no more than four months. We will maintain diplomatic relationships with the Iraqi government, and if by some miracle it survives, that's great. More realistically, it will probably collapse within a year of our withdrawal. If the country fragments into three, we will have no choice but to recognize their independence, if not the individual governments.
:doh

We "cannot win" if this is the prevailing attitude at home, sure.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Harshaw said:
:doh

We "cannot win" if this is the prevailing attitude at home, sure.
Well it is, so we can't. What's your point? Do you honestly expect people to just optimistically (read: naively) support an indefinite troop presence in Iraq with no real plan for improvement, after the way the occupation has been screwed up time and time again?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kandahar said:
Well it is, so we can't. What's your point? Do you honestly expect people to just optimistically (read: naively) support an indefinite troop presence in Iraq with no real plan for improvement, after the way the occupation has been screwed up time and time again?
I don't know...

Can you explain why the USA started a war in 1775 when it didn't have a settled view of how a goverment should be run until 1787?:roll:
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE - The Israeli pullout from Gaza is a good start to the peace process, but there will be no easy solution. If the Palestinians are able to maintain law and order in Gaza and prevent acts of terrorism, Israel should reward them with partial withdraw from the West Bank as well. Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, but it should not inflame the situation by responding to every suicide bombing with a massive invasion into Palestine.
To date, since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, over 40 Qassam rockets launched from Gaza have landed in the Israeli city of Sderot. I am curious as to what you consider a justified demarcation between 'Israeli self defense' and 'Israelis inflaming the situation'.

Even Egypt (leery of Hamas terrorism and possible backblow) has now sealed the border between itself and Gaza. Is this commonsense maneuver by Egypt a matter self-defense or is it to be construed as inflaming the situation?

Is 40 Qassam rockets a sufficient number to invoke self-defense? 80? In your own mind, what is the arbitrary and artificial figure that would suffice to morph 'inflaming the situation' into 'self-defense'? Would Hamas agree to this deliniation? Would the citizens of Sderot? Just curious on your response.



 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
cnredd said:
I don't know...

Can you explain why the USA started a war in 1775 when it didn't have a settled view of how a goverment should be run until 1787?:roll:
Or how Harry Truman took us into Korea, a quagmire from which we haven't emerged?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mine would be a policy of isolationism except when cases warranted otherwise. Basically, it is very ambiguous and would not necessarily get us committed to wars that we did not want to enter.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
I don't know...

Can you explain why the USA started a war in 1775 when it didn't have a settled view of how a goverment should be run until 1787?:roll:
A few key differences between the American Revolution and the war in Iraq:

1. We were fighting for our OWN independence in the American revolution. We're supposedly fighting for someone else's independence in Iraq.

2. We didn't have a clear view of what kind of government we wanted at the beginning of the American Revolution...but the revolutionaries DID share a common view that they wanted independence and were against tyrrany. There seems to be NO commonly agreed upon goal in Iraq, other than maybe to not let it fall into the hands of terrorists who weren't there in the first place prior to the invasion.

3. All things considered, the American Revolution went much better than could be expected from an army of untrained farmers opposing the largest, best-trained army in the world. In Iraq, there has been one screw-up after another with no clear plan on how to fix this.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
To date, since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, over 40 Qassam rockets launched from Gaza have landed in the Israeli city of Sderot. I am curious as to what you consider a justified demarcation between 'Israeli self defense' and 'Israelis inflaming the situation'.

Even Egypt (leery of Hamas terrorism and possible backblow) has now sealed the border between itself and Gaza. Is this commonsense maneuver by Egypt a matter self-defense or is it to be construed as inflaming the situation?

Is 40 Qassam rockets a sufficient number to invoke self-defense? 80? In your own mind, what is the arbitrary and artificial figure that would suffice to morph 'inflaming the situation' into 'self-defense'? Would Hamas agree to this deliniation? Would the citizens of Sderot? Just curious on your response.
Simply put, I think it's inflaming the situation if it creates more terrorism than it prevents. A strong response from Israel might or might not inflame the situation, but a weak response certainly would.

I do not claim to know the exact number of attacks, but I would venture to say that the current number is not enough. With the relative peace that currently exists, I find it highly unlikely that another massive Israeli invasion into Gaza would stop very many acts of terrorism...but it might anger more people into launching rockets.

As for Egypt, of course their sealing of the border is a common-sense measure to prevent terrorism. I don't think it's inflaming the situation simply because it's very unlikely that the Palestinians will be outraged at Egypt for a prolonged period of time, launch a terror campaign against Egypt, and threaten to push the nation into the sea.
 

MCcorno89

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
quietrage said:
Imagine that you won the 2004 election and that you took over for Bush in January 2005 (I know that this is not the case), what would your forgien policy be? Lets imagine that congress agrees with everything you do however unrealistic that is.
What is a forgein?
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
Simply put, I think it's inflaming the situation if it creates more terrorism than it prevents. A strong response from Israel might or might not inflame the situation, but a weak response certainly would.
Agreed

Kandahar said:
I do not claim to know the exact number of attacks, but I would venture to say that the current number is not enough. With the relative peace that currently exists, I find it highly unlikely that another massive Israeli invasion into Gaza would stop very many acts of terrorism...but it might anger more people into launching rockets.
Being an Israeli and attuned to Israel's political landscape, I feel that the current number hovers at the cusp of retaliation. I must say that I find your last above sentence extraordinary. Perhaps I misunderstand the continuity, but it seems to say that by reacting to incessant rocket attacks, Israel only angers the terrorists to launch more rockets. If anger at reprisal is the catalyst here, then what pray tell inspired the initial attacks? Does terrorist motovation actually make one iota of difference in this regard?

Kandahar said:
As for Egypt, of course their sealing of the border is a common-sense measure to prevent terrorism. I don't think it's inflaming the situation simply because it's very unlikely that the Palestinians will be outraged at Egypt for a prolonged period of time, launch a terror campaign against Egypt, and threaten to push the nation into the sea.
I actually don't think Mubarak had the Palestinians per-se in mind here. What the Egyptian regime fears most is that Gaza will become a sanctuary and support apparatus for organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. If this nightmare becomes a reality, Egypt itself may well invade and occupy the Gaza strip.

I personally think it is fair proposition to say that the amount of time Abu Mazan has to solidify control of Gaza, and to eliminate threats emanating from Gaza on its neighbors is limited. Polite patience also has its limits.

Thank you for your thoughtful response Kandahar.


 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
Being an Israeli and attuned to Israel's political landscape, I feel that the current number hovers at the cusp of retaliation. I must say that I find your last above sentence extraordinary. Perhaps I misunderstand the continuity, but it seems to say that by reacting to incessant rocket attacks, Israel only angers the terrorists to launch more rockets. If anger at reprisal is the catalyst here, then what pray tell inspired the initial attacks? Does terrorist motovation actually make one iota of difference in this regard?
You're right that most of the terrorist leaders are ideologues who will want to attack Israel regardless of Israel's actions. However, they find it much easier to recruit easily-led Palestinians to do their dirty work when they have some kind of excuse. The ideologues feign outrage over Israel's actions, but this becomes actual outrage among average Palestinians.

Tashah said:
I actually don't think Mubarak had the Palestinians per-se in mind here. What the Egyptian regime fears most is that Gaza will become a sanctuary and support apparatus for organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. If this nightmare becomes a reality, Egypt itself may well invade and occupy the Gaza strip.
I agree. Frankly I think an Egyptian occupation of Gaza would be much more effective at stopping terrorism than an Israeli occupation. While Mubarak is certainly no angel, he has done an excellent job of keeping terrorists out of Egypt; Sharon has routinely failed at doing the same for Israel. The leaders of the terrorist organizations will have much more difficulty recruiting Palestinians to attack Egyptians than Israelis.

Tashah said:
I personally think it is fair proposition to say that the amount of time Abu Mazan has to solidify control of Gaza, and to eliminate threats emanating from Gaza on its neighbors is limited. Polite patience also has its limits.
I agree. While I don't think Abu Mazen is a terrorist himself the way Arafat was, it seems as though he simply does not have the political power to stop the attacks.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here are two of my older posts which pretty sums up my foriegn policy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all when making such a serious accusation against a U.S. president during wartime I would hope that the author would have a bit more evidence than the three vacant and non descript statements which had been mentioned in the post. That being said the war was not illegal because by all rights we could have invaded Iraq after Hussein violated the first of the U.N. resolutions, keep in mind that we were in a state of war with Iraq since 1991 and that the armistice was signed based on the contingent of Saddam's good behavior. Oh, and as far as war criminals are concerned let us consider old uncle Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, as well as, his illegal invasions of both Kuwait and Kurdistan. Furthermore, let us, for the sake of argument, say that the sovereignty of Iraq had been violated without just cause and was infact a violation of international law (big hypothetical here o.k.). Now, sovereignty and international law is much kinder to tyrants and despots than it is to democracies, probably due to the authors of the aforementioned International Law, the U.N., being an organization which is dominated by tyrants and despots, so that being said Saddam Hussein took power by force and for his entire reign he ruled by force and intimidation, so, by what moral right did he have to rule Iraq? None! So how would it be possibly considered a crime by any rational observer that the U.S. or any outside power remove Saddam from power by force?


The soul choice should not be ours alone to make but yes we do have the right to act unnilaterally should it be in our nations best interests! Why?, because as the worlds soul super power we have the moral obligation to kill genocidal maniacs, such as, Saddam Hussein. Is it our job to police the world? Unfortunately, I will have to give a large unapologetic yes to that question. I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism, there is no moral equivalency b/w the U.S. and rogue states led by tyrants, we have the moral high ground and with such we have the right, nay, the obligation to remove tyrants like Saddam from power. I believe also in the Wilsonian principles that are the basis of the supra national organization now known as the U.N. These Wilsonian principles which state that corrupt institutions are the problem and not the people that reside under said institutions but when the U.N. is dominated by the very despots who embody these corrupt institutions and when their views and actions differ from ours is it not then our responsibility to act unilaterally?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
quietrage said:
So you think that America has the right to attack any country that we deem to be a danger?
Short answer: yes, long answer: if it's in our national interests and our security is jeopardized by that country I feel that we have the right to act preemptively.
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well why would these nations pick out America over another Western country like Canada?
And I think that America should only act if there is a clear and present danger, like deployed weapons of mass destruction. Anything that does not amount to a threat on the 50 states is not worth it. American INTERESTS are bull ***** there is only one interest and that is the protection of the American people.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,340
Reaction score
10,607
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
quietrage said:
Well why would these nations pick out America over another Western country like Canada?
And I think that America should only act if there is a clear and present danger, like deployed weapons of mass destruction. Anything that does not amount to a threat on the 50 states is not worth it. American INTERESTS are bull ***** there is only one interest and that is the protection of the American people.

What about economic interests?
What about oil interests?

Protecting American people also involves the maintaining of a certain lifestyle OR "American interests". This is what our foreign policy has provided us and why it is shady in places.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,340
Reaction score
10,607
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
Mine would be a policy of isolationism except when cases warranted otherwise. Basically, it is very ambiguous and would not necessarily get us committed to wars that we did not want to enter.

Isolationalism equals world wars. With isolationalism, we could have seen a WWIII instead of a Cold War.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Short answer: yes, long answer: if it's in our national interests and our security is jeopardized by that country I feel that we have the right to act preemptively.
I agree with this in theory. However, I don't think Iraq qualifies just because they violated a few UN resolutions.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kandahar said:
I agree with this in theory. However, I don't think Iraq qualifies just because they violated a few UN resolutions.
Some people think so...some don't...

I usually let the person who has the authority given to them through the Constitution with the consent of Congress decide...

I may not have agreed or haven't been old enough to know all of the info when any attack happened during my lifetime, but I have never said the CiC was not JUSTIFIED....He makes the decisions(until there is a "she", then it will be "He/She" makes the decisions"), and we should stand by our CONSTITUTION & the OFFICE...even if our personal feelings for the person are negative.
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have noticed that most people who have not offered their policies, they only attack what others have posted.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
A few key differences between the American Revolution and the war in Iraq: 1. We were fighting for our OWN independence in the American revolution. We're supposedly fighting for someone else's independence in Iraq.
We are, in essence, fighting for our own freedom in Iraq because we feel like our efforts over there will help detour terrorism. And terrorism definitely hinders our own freedom, so.

2. We didn't have a clear view of what kind of government we wanted at the beginning of the American Revolution...but the revolutionaries DID share a common view that they wanted independence and were against tyrrany. There seems to be NO commonly agreed upon goal in Iraq, other than maybe to not let it fall into the hands of terrorists who weren't there in the first place prior to the invasion.
I think there were probably numerous terrorists there, hiding "underground" from Suddam's army.


3. All things considered, the American Revolution went much better than could be expected from an army of untrained farmers opposing the largest, best-trained army in the world. In Iraq, there has been one screw-up after another with no clear plan on how to fix this.
You don't think there were, "screw ups" in the revolutionary war? Sure there were. We just barely won. Everyone thought we would lose. Every war has casualties, accidents, mishaps, etc. No military procedure happens perfectly as to how it was executed. Neither does anything else in life.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
George_Washington said:
We are, in essence, fighting for our own freedom in Iraq because we feel like our efforts over there will help detour terrorism. And terrorism definitely hinders our own freedom, so.
There have only been three major terrorist attacks inside the United States in the last fifteen years. Only two of those were carried out by Muslims, and none of those had any link to Baathist Iraq.

George_Washington said:
I think there were probably numerous terrorists there, hiding "underground" from Suddam's army.
That may be. But if they were hiding underground, their ability to plan out attacks and gather funds was severely limited. The point is that Saddam Hussein kept terrorists out of Iraq through brutal enforcement of anti-terrorism laws.

George_Washington said:
You don't think there were, "screw ups" in the revolutionary war? Sure there were. We just barely won. Everyone thought we would lose. Every war has casualties, accidents, mishaps, etc. No military procedure happens perfectly as to how it was executed. Neither does anything else in life.
Of course there were screw ups. You're right that everyone thought we would lose...which is exactly my point! A small army of American farmers defeated the biggest empire in the world, exceeding all expectations. I don't think we've exceeded (or even met) all expectations in Iraq. WE are now the biggest empire in the world and can't even defeat a small third-world insurgency numbering in the mere tens of thousands with no popular support.
 
Top Bottom