Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Just read up on her. Yep, that was pretty stupid. I wonder why Bush didn't dismantle it when he came into office............
I think I understand terrorism pretty well. I think I also understand the basic rules of war as in;
Don't split your force.
Don't fight on more than one front.
Use overwhelming force.
You obviously don't understand the basic's................
Ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq also. You have heard from a friend who was knows of where he was at while in Iraq. I'm talking overall.
A brief summation;
I support the war on terror.
I support the invasion of Afganistan.
I support the use of overwelming force.
I believe invading Iraq was a gross mistake and has made the situation worse, not better.
I believe Sadamm was a bad guy but you don't invade countries because of a corrupt goverment. We don't have that right. We use that as a gage and we will be attacking over half the world.
|
I was going to repond to you in entirety, but I'm sick of this thread.
Bush did dismantle the walls built by the Clinton administration in intelligence information sharing. And the Democrats screamed bloody murder over it when it was done.
And your basic premise of war fighting may be correct in some ways, but you would have lost WW2 applying them on a global warfighting scale. Tell Roosevelt he shouldn't have fought on multiple fronts or he shouldn't split his forces between Atlantic or Pacific. And while I believe we should use overwhelming force, it would help if the Democrats would shut up when we do it, and not become Al Qaeda's domestic propaganda machine. Your general basics of war do not apply with the type of enemy we now confront. And the leftists in the USA make it very difficult to use any force at all.
If you support the war on terror and Afghanistan, and you support the use of overwhelming force, why are you so opposed to President Bush? Just because you don't support our actions in Iraq? OK, you are against the Iraq war, fine. But you have not read the resolution. And it shows with your statement regarding Saddam being a bad guy, and thinking that's why we went there.
Oh yeah, and one more thing, Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-invasion. What was proven not to be true was a link of Saddam to 9/11 nor was there an absolute establishment of a working relationship. But yes, in Salman Pak, there was terrorist manuals, evidence of a hijacking training program, and Saddam was actively financing terrorists in the West Bank. And Saddam had been actively using his military forces against Kurdish civilians. That sir, can be called a terrorist supporting state by any measure.