The battle of Iraq has long been referred to as just one more battle in the war against terrorism. It began in Afghanistan, and may have to go elsewhere later. I can dig up old quotes if necessary.
As for the "flypaper" theory, how do you nail down as a certaintly whether or not the war in Iraq is decreasing terrorism? Since no major acts of terror have occurred in America or Britain since 9/11, one could say that the operation might be working. Hard to draw a curve with one datum, or even two. If the anniversary goes by without incident, I think an important point will have been made.
The attacks in Iraq, by any reasonable standard of occupation or warfare, are trivial. Most Iraqis are on our side, and most of the attackers aren't even Iraqi. If there was a major uprising in the population, you'd know it. And we are beating them.
The Baathist's one hope is the Vietnam/Somalia Syndrome. If they can wear us down politically, they don't have to wear us down militarily.
Current Events » in reply to In "it will decrease terrorism", the IT stood for conquering Iraq
A little more perspective...
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Bush really is a moron
- "I can't believe I'm loosing to this idiot"
- You really miss those heady exciting days of appeasement and jutting jaw and strong talk?
- Bush really is a moron
- re: Yes, he is a moron . . .
- but are you attracting flies or also breeding more flies n/t (n/t)
- re: You have a problem with that . . . ?
- There are a lot of flies in the Middle East
- So when we were debating 6 months ago...
- Termites
- Frank, with a straight face, sees no inconsistency (n/t)
- Termites
- So when we were debating 6 months ago...
- but are you attracting flies or also breeding more flies n/t (n/t)
- re: Bush
