Can We Finish One War Before Starting Another? [BARF ALERT] (with Poll to FReep)

about.com ^ | 9/14/02 | Charles Henderson

[ladyinred]

This war on Iraq isn't really a different war. This war on terrorism is a continuing thing, this is just another front. Saddam is a terrorist, and has a country full of terrorists.

[Bryan]

Regarding that poll:

Yes.......................208 votes (62%)

No........................120 votes (36%)

Undecided...........7 votes (2%)

[schmelvin]

Thanks, ppaul!

Believe me, I'm ready for him. Post #50 was just a set up, which he can really only try to refute one way. And, I'm ready to slam him when he does. Big time!

(I can't help myself. I'm just evil that way. Hehehe...)

[BlackVeil]

I suggest you think about the implication for US interests of an anarchical Iraq ... what kind of regime typically emerges after a Moslem country falls into a state of anarchy? Why are you just about the only one on the board who has the sense to think about this? No one even seems to remember that the same type of thinking - oh the consequences don't matter we have to confront the radical Islamists - is precisely how Sadaam Hussein got vital US support for his earlier wars. And for many of his WMDs, which were supplied gratis by the Western world. They did not think about the day after tomorrow, when Sadaam got out of control. The next to get out of control will be our "allies" in the "opposition" in Iraq. They will actually be much more difficult to contain than the present regime.