Replies

"Is the world safer without Hussein in power?"
Good question. Is the world "safer" today then when the war began?

It would be hard to prove one way or the other. Have bombings around the world increased or decreased since the occupation began? Does this fact have anything to do with Saddams arrest? Has al-queda become weaker or stronger since the war began?

_______________________________________________

This is not a difficult question. If you are a terrorist, a nation who harbors terrorists or a despot/tyrant/ruler/mullah who supports terrorism, the world is definitely much more dangerous for you now thanks to our president and our armed forces.

Here's where it gets real easy: We have not been attacked by terrorists within our borders since 9-11. If you had been asked on September 12, 2001 if we could go 3 1/2 years without another domestic terrorist attack, what would your answer have been? If you were like me you were waiting for the other shoe to drop. It has not happened.

Right now, I think the members of Al Qaida, who are still alive, are busy trying to make sure that democracy is not allowed to succeed in Iraq or they are fighting our troops on the Afghan-Paki border. In doing so many more of them are being killed every day. They are being engaged and killed over there so they can not attack us here. Their leader has been reduced to hiding in a cave traveling in a small group with only his most trusted people. He is constantly looking over his shoulder for American special forces or a missile from the clear blue sky. Hard to make plans and rally the troops when your day is spent trying to survive until the next.

Anyone who thinks that these scum could possibly hate us anymore now than they did prior to 9-11 is just plain ignorant. If they could have used nukes on 9-11, they would have. This is just more drivel by the would be leftist appeasers who think that animals who fly planes into buildings, saw off the heads of innocent people or shoot children in the back in school yards can be negotiated with or appeased. They cannot. The only way to deal with them is to kill them and make it clear to anyone harboring like ambitions that they too will be killed.

It may get worse before it gets better (more bombings around the world etc.) since war is ugly and these terrorists are unlike anything we have ever confronted in previous wars. One thing is for certain, Hussein will no longer be able to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people or rape and torture thousands more.

Your parallel question about the Soviet Union is absurd. Are you one those who believes that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban?

"We have not been attacked by terrorists within our borders since 9-11. If you had been asked on September 12, 2001 if we could go 3 1/2 years without another domestic terrorist attack, what would your answer have been?"

It's hard to determine since 9/11 has been the only major attack on the US in many years whether the terrorist organizations were very strong prior to 9/11 and have been weakened since or whether the terrorists got "lucky" on their initial strike and never had much of a power base.

You say that it is an easy question to answer and yet you didn't answer a single question about whether fewer or more terrorist attacks have occurred since the beginning of the war, how many terrorists exist, etc. These are not easy questions to answer and even have our top intelligence experts in a quandry as to the strength of al-qaeda, the number of forces arrayed against us etc. I am very glad the Bush administration has done a good job protecting america since 9/11. I do not (of course) know if this is a false sense of security or whether are borders and cities are really as protected as this long pause of terrorist activity implies. Since terrorist attacks are few and far between both prior and post 9/11 it is hard to determine.

"Your parallel question about the Soviet Union is absurd. Are you one those who believes that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban?"

I posed the question, I didn't provide an answer.
Do you think the world is safer without the soviet union?
Or did its destabilization create a greater potential threat?

There are no easy answers to these questions which is my point. One benefit of the war (the arrest of Saddam) does not necessarilly create a more stable region. Sure Saddam will no longer be able to torture the Iraqi populace, but that does not guarentee that the Iraqi populace will be free of murder or torture.