you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The Al-Q franchise there is very small compared to the nationalist/sectarina opposition. And you are not factoring in the great training ground it is for terrorists, in the same way fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was.
There is absolutley no use killing a few in Iraq if at the same time your actions breed more and more.
Point taken. But are you implying that there is certain threshold that needs to be reached before justifying the war? Is this a typical Return On Investment analysis? If we kill more Al Qaeda a week than they recruit or train, the war is OK? Or do we count this up quarterly?
BTW… I am well aware that there is also an indigenous insurgency. Aren’t they also engaging in suicide bombings and terrorism against others? If so, they are AQ wannabes and deserve the same fate.
But not either defending or abandoning your own bullshit? 
Pouting does not become you, John. You know what Bush said is what he meant - that he isn’t trying to apprehend Osama at all. That’s the fucking point, not that it’s “bad for the Democrats”. If you’d rather go away in a huff rather than discuss the actual topic here, you’re welcome to do so - and we’ll all know it, too.
Ever wonder why nobody mistakes you for a Democrat, btw?
No - just arguing that the argument is unsound on its own terms. The illegal invasion or Iraq was a big gift to terrorists. They wanted us to go in there just as they are gagging for us to attack Iran.
A legally sanctioned invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, with a competent international reconstruction effort that left Iraqi’s to decide what sort of govt they want without handing out contracts etc to Bush’s mates would have been fine by me. And I bet, most Iraqi’s too.
Reese: “Listen and understand! That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop ever, until you are dead.”
Osama offers his truce from his perspective as an arab, I have heard. I have heard that it is legitimate in his culture. Possibly a holdover from raiding.
The thing is, we havn’t held to that since Grant and the era of Total War. While understanding other cultures is important, it does not mean that we have to bow to their needs. Our culture of war never ends. As long as he lives, he is a target, until he is dead. And that’s how we do things. Why would we change it?
This is certainly a minor hijack of my own thread… but… there is no such thing as a “legally sanctioned” invasion of anyone, anytime. There is no international body that says it is legal to invade - not the UN, not the Hague, not the ISO or the Boy Scouts of America.
What might happen, its that other governments agree that the action in question is justified (very different than legal). And a coalition is formed. And friendly governments, called allies usually, support the action with troops, or supplies, or moral support even. But, sometimes, governments can take military action without this kind of support. The addition or lack of support doesn’t make the action justified, or legal all by itself. Just popular or not. You need to make your own decision as to whether is it justified. Forget legal.
Maybe legal was the wrong word. But I consider GW1 ‘legal’. Internationally sanctioned. And to reiterate, competent. Which this debacle is the very, absolute, polar opposite of.
I think we should reduce our posted reward for his death or capture to $20mil., and make it clear that we anticipate further reductions in various, irregular increments at irregular intervals over time. Just as Al-Qaeda releases video and audio-recordings periodically, we should be periodically reviewing the various bounties we have on these guys – partly to save money*, partly to insult** them and mess with their heads, and perhaps mostly to keep the bounty temptation in the Arab press and on people’s minds, with the subtle pressure, for those tempted to turn fink, to act now rather than later.
**or, as Bette Midler put it in Ruthless People, when she learned of her husband’s successful efforts to lessen her ransom, “I’ve been marked down? Me?!? Marked DOWN???..”
Sorry… doesn’t work for me. In GW1 - the UK came with us. They did again this time. That obviously doesn’t meet your threshold. If I recall correctly, China didn’t come with us either time - so that was not important either.
France - France “came with us” the first time, and not the second… is it France?
Germany? Do you count by number of countries sanctioning? or does population count?
I am not being sarcastic - I truly think your logic is seriously flawed. It makes NO difference which nations support the military action and which don’t. We should not be making decisions based on the popularity of the action with others. It is nice when others support us, but it is NOT part of the consideration to act or not (except insofar as military tactics are impacted). We did NOT take a poll of nations after Pearl Harbor, we declared war in 24 hours. When we did so, France had already been occupied, Britain was on her knees. There was not a hell of a lot of point in worrying about international support. It was time to go to war, and perfectly justified.
After 9/11, the same logic applies insofar as justification. We decide what we are to do, we hope others see our reasoning. And we are held accountable for our actions in the global community as well as domestically.
Meantime, make your own decision about it. Don’t wait for others to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
The problem with this analogy is that Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. Now, if we had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, on the other hand…
Cite for Pakistan or Iraq being involved in 9/11.
Ain’t none. Sorry for not spelling out every detail of my arguement. The point was about legally sanctioned/popular/etc invasions. You need to address my point.
What I probably should have said in the 9/11 - Pearl Harbor thing was that after 9/11 we invaded AFGANISTAN. We went there, because we were in pursuit of the organizers of 9/11. As far as I know we still are (GWB’s bumbling statements notwithstanding - he as said contradictory things on this).
The invasion of Iraq was based on the WMD thing, which I reflected upon several times in this thread.
I keep answering your questions Tagos - please answer mine - which countries do you require approval from before you order military action, and what do you base that list on?