9/11 was not done by Iraq and Saddam Hussein was a staunch leftist secularist (that is why he was supported by US in war against Iran). Would you attack Korea after Pearl Harbour just because Koreans look similar and have similar religion to the Japanese?
American troops are stationed in more than 100 countries and the number is growing, when will it end - with the ultimate victory or with the collapse?
Pearl Harbor was not done by Adolf Hitler, who was a Nazi. What's your point?
I didn't realize I called it the "War Caused by 9-11." Perhaps you could point out where I did.
So, you think Saddam didn't support terrorists, huh? Like Abu Abbas who recently died in Iraq? Or how about the northern terrorists who we've linked to al Qaeda?
And just because we haven't found WMD's yet . . . I suppose it didn't bother you beforehand that Saddam wouldn't explain when and where he got rid of all the WMD's he "supposedly" had during the Clinton Administration, WMD's the UN Inspectors even said he had? Thinking of Saddam with biological and chemical weapons doesn't bother you? How about with nuclear weapons? Does that bother you? It's patently unfair to grade our before-the-war efforts by what we "supposedly" know today. EVERYONE agreed Saddam had WMD's . . . it was up to him to prove he didn't. And we gave him twelve years to do so.
Lastly, don't try to paint me with your race-baiting brush to justify your position. I purposefully didn't use race because it gives those spoiling for a fight . . . like you . . . such an easy target. Are you denying that those who willingly commit suicide in the name of Allah, while murdering as many innocents as they can, are not "religious zealots?" It doesn't matter to me if they're Muslims or Baptists . . . if they're committing suicide and murdering innocents in Whatever name it is they call their God, they're religious zealots. Your race-baiting says much about you.
Evidently, you're against the War on Terror or the War in Iraq . . . which to me is part and parcel the same, but evidently it's not to you. So, instead of taking pot-shots, why don't you tell me what you would do instead. Would you have us hide under our beds like the Spanish? Would you have us waste another twelve years playing kissy-face at the UN? Would you have us withdraw ALL our troops from the "100 countries" and have them build fences around our borders so we could hunker down like the Alamo defenders?
Just what is it you would do? Naysayers are a dime a dozen. It takes nothing to take potshots. But do you have a better alternative? That is the question. I await your reply.
Saddam was bankrolling many terrorist groups. He is gone. There is now a chance of a democratic Iraq prospering in the middle east, which can affect the whole region.
Why do you think the house of saud does not want to see the new Iraq succeed, because they know they are next.
But you go ahead with your Buchannite/DU shortsighted rants.
And that ridiculous fact is key to this mis-use of the reserves and national guard. Why are we in Germany, for example?
When I signed up for active duty, I knew exactly what the deal was. Combat operations should be staffed by RA unless we're really pressed. This isn't to say the guardsmen and reserves haven't done a fantastic job, just that we've active duty garrison troops in many places we shouldn't be, and are putting these reserve troops in duties they shouldn't have.
The response to 9/11 included the toppling of two governments. The Teliban government in Afghanistan was an easy and logical choice. Iraq drew the short straw and became the other choice. It was a good choice because Saddam violated the agreements of Gulf War I and threw the inspectors out, etc.... Now, Iran is being squeezed on both sides and is having serious internal problems. And Libya is changing, as well. After another 9/11 in the US or the UK, another 2 or 3 axis governments will be toppled.