I didn't forget about them, BD....but, they are really a different problem than the Sunni extremists....that is, rogue nations developing nuclear weapons. And don't forget China and North Korea. That's why we maintain our conventional forces.
I hate to tell you this, BD, we are NOT invading Iran anytime soon....nor was that part of the original plan. We will pressure them....maybe even strike them, but we will not invade Iran....no way.
BTW, Saddam and Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction when we invaded in March 2003....and he had no WMDs for quite some time (since 1991). You are one of the very last few holding onto that one, BD....even the Bush Administration has given up on it. You want to keep believing it sitting there in nowhere, West Virginia.....go right ahead....doesn't make it so.
My understanding, BD, is that they were very primitive attempts to use chemicals...like chlorine, etc....and the materials did not come from a weapons program, so to speak.
Not necessarily, BD. First of all, it's not clear to most of us in this business whether or not Al Qaeda has gotten stronger or weaker. This article from the MSNBC says that based on recent National Intelligence Estimates Al Qaeda is actually gaining strength...and getting stronger.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19730468/
The report came from the National Counterterrorism Center. So, I think you are being a little optimistic about the effect Iraq has had on Al Qaeda.
BD, you've said all this before and I explained to you that statistically you CANNOT conclude what you are concluding. We had
one foreign-based terrorist attack on our soil prior to 9/11 (1993 WTC bombing)....and that's it. There's no statistical difference between the rate of attacks prior to 9/11 and post-9/11. Basic statistics, BD....understand? So, one can't conclude there has been any change in the rate of attacks on US soil. Also, if there has indeed been a decline, what is your in depth analysis that links it to our actions in Iraq.....maybe our preventative actions here at home, e.g., tighter security in the airports, tighter port security, customs, etc. has been the reason for the decline. Have you deconflicted those aspects, BD....or are you just saying what you want to be true....and as usual calling it "fact"? Alright, I'll start referring to these "facts" as Blue Mongrel Facts....what do you think of that???
He wasn't much of threat to anyone in the first place.
Hey whoo there, BD...using Blue Mongrel Logic, we only had
one foreign-based terrorist attack on our soil during his presidency in which we lost six people. On paper, that's way better than GWB....so, Clinton must have done a better job...those facts speak for themselves...
Oh yeah, how so? Can you give a little more detail here, BD...or is this just another one of those Blue Mongrel facts.
Well, I've said this before, BD....Afghanistan was a success...at least, up to about February of 2002. I gave the Bush Administration big kudos for garnering the necessary accesses to get into Afghanistan....and prosecuting the initial war. And (you're going to hate this) I give the Clinton Administration some of the credit as well for establishing the ties to key Northern Alliance people during the 90s and allowing the military to greatly enhance its information technology and capabilities.
In my mind, Iraq has been a costly endeavor that hasn't yielded very much in return.....in fact, we still have a serious buger on our hands....and, consequently, we keep funneling our military through that meat grinder....and I believe that will eventually bite us in the ass. It's kind of like paying 1,000 dollars for a 60 dollar golf course....and playing poorly enough to know you still have a lot to work on.
See what I said above....
Linear Mode
