Army War College Study Blasts U.S. War on Terrorism

[MTAtech]

"Army War College Study Blasts U.S. War on Terrorism
Mon January 12, 2004 11:33 PM ET

(Page 1 of 2)
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq invasion was "an unnecessary preventive war of choice" that has robbed resources and attention from the more critical fight against al Qaeda in a hopeless U.S. quest for absolute security, according to a study recently published by the U.S. Army War College. "Full Article

[Friedchicken100]

Bush is just a war monger. It almost seems like he is trying to clean up his father's war. Follow in his footsteps. They haven't really found any "weapons of mass destruction." And there have been no connections found with al Qaeda.

[TOAD6147]

Bush is just a war monger. It almost seems like he is trying to clean up his father's war. Follow in his footsteps. They haven't really found any "weapons of mass destruction." And there have been no connections found with al Qaeda.

Well, then you probably haven't listened to the harangue of his die-hard supporters. They will write and rewrite fact and/or history to support or justify anything he does. He's such a manly man president, you know because he's got "big ones" and he kicks terrorist butt!

[RayH]

The War on Terror is about as winnable as the War on CRIME!

It gets very hard to to fight a war that has no defined enemy. But setting up such a grandiose agenda seemed to me only to lead to failure.

Everything gets defined as "War on Terror." We will be living under essentially martial law. So who wins?

[J-Excel]

Right. The president should have done absolutely nothing. Or better yet, maybe he should have sent an apology letter to al Qaeda for the U.S. inciting them to perform terrorist acts. He should have lifted the sanctions on Iraq because, after all, Saddam wasn't such a bad guy. If being such a coward got to be too stressful then the president could have just gotten oral sex from his interns like his role model did.

Oh, wait, nevermind, Bush won the last election, not Gore.

[MTAtech]

J-E, have you forgotten? al Qaeda and Iraq were not linked. Nor did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11.

Absolutely nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. As an alternative, all the resources wasted in Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan, where we are losing ground to the terrorists again.

[J-Excel]

You think I linked Iraq and al Qaeda in that post?

[MTAtech]

J-E, yes, it sounded like 'doing nothing' meant not invading Iraq.

[TOAD6147]

The president should have done absolutely nothing. Or... sent an apology letter to al Qaeda for the U.S. inciting them to perform terrorist acts. He should have lifted the sanctions on Iraq...

Yes, it sounds to me that you have been mechanically and blindly repeating the same disinformation for so long without realizing what you're saying that you still can't refrain from tying them together despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

[jynxedu]

What we all need to realize is that there will never be an end to the War on Terror. There will always be terrorism in some way, shape or form.

IMO, the WoT is an attempt at prevention of future acts of terrorism. You cannot prevent a group of misguided peeps in our eyes from blowing themselves up all the time, and taking some innocents with them. You have to start somewhere and yes, it will happen again.

Moving into Iraq removed a lecherous dictator who tortured and oppressed those who were/weren't his own people. Certain chemical weapons were outlawed by UN and NATO, yet he used them domestically. Shouldn't we have moved in then?

So riddle me this: Is it right to sit back and let some bastage and his offspring maim, rape and kill at their whim if you have the ability and opprotunity to prevent/stop it?

I think we all know the right answer to that.