The only serious anti-war predictions I paid attention to were the "we're going to breed a whole new bunch of terrorists" has pretty much panned out as anticipated.
You know, for all that this mantra is said, I have never seen a single bit of objective evidence that there are any more terrorists now than there would have been if we had never entered Iraq.
Did someone do a survey of terrorists? "Fifty percent of all Islamist terrorists interviewed say they would not hate America now if the U.S. had only restricted itself to invading Afghanistan, decimating al Qaeda, and destroying the Islamist Taliban government, instead of toppling Saddam, the beloved hero of all al Qaeda terrorists."
Doesn't hold up too well, does it?
Sure, there's a lot more people trying to kill our troops than there would be if our troops weren't there, but that kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? Oddly enough, a lot more Americans were killed by Japanese and Germans during WWII than either two years before or after the war.
What acts of terror--particularly those that have taken place outside Iraq--would definitely never have occurred if we had only attacked Afghanistan? What major terrorist leaders on our hit list were not terrorists before we invaded Iraq? Hell, which ones weren't terrorists before 9/11?
Current Events » in reply to Britain's civil war was about....
"Breeding terrorists" myth
The whole thread (59 posts)
- Rumsfeld makes excuses for administration's incompetence
- Rumsfeld makes invalid excuses for administration's incompetence
- So is the armour adequate or not?
- Once again you prove your ignorance of military history
- Looking like another MSM soundbite attack.
- Meanwhile: 1,276