Joe, please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I can still type for myself. Let's take Bin Laden. Is he Saudi? I think so. Does that mean we should bomb Saudi Arabia? No. Is he in Pakistan? Maybe. Should we bomb Pakistan? Obama wanted to get tough with them when he was running for President and now that he is President, our drones fill the Pakistani skies. We aren't at war with them because we don't have to be. Again, if you have more information...
Afghanistan was harboring the folks that attacked the U.S. Mainland. That cannot stand.
Hmmmmmmm . . . Afghanistan harboring "folks" = invasion because Thaed says it cannot stand. Saudi Arabia harboring and giving extensive financial support to "folks" != invasion because Thaed says, "Does that mean we should bomb Saudi Arabia? No." See the difference? That's what I'm trying to figure out here.
Is he in Pakistan? >Most likely, according to this.
FTFY. Which goes back to my earlier question: If harboring "folks" was enough for us to invade Afghanistan, why aren't we invading Pakistan?
Joe, your dystopian wish-dream world view isn't likely to come true any time soon. A 2009 NYT report is not a basis to invade Saudi Arabia. Time flows forward in a linear manner. Had that evidence been available in 2001, who knows what GWB would have done? He was not one for being indecisive. Of course, knowing you, you're probably thinking he knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time or other such conspiracy theory hogwash. I did take the time to read your article, though and financing is not a synonym for harboring. Really, you should get a new thesaurus or use one of the online versions.
And again, because you missed it the first time, if your military force has essentially carte blanche to do what it wishes in a country, then you don't need to invade. Thus we don't need to invade Pakistan.
As a side note and back to the point of this thread, maybe our actions in Iraq did help the democracy movement in the Middle East. I watched a CNN report at lunch showing celebrations in eastern Libya and the American reporter was welcomed with open arms. While not hating us is not evidence of inspiration, the very large crowd seemed to view American reporters as being on their side. Refreshing in the face of constant anti-American propaganda.
As a side note and back to the point of this thread, maybe our actions in Iraq did help the democracy movement in the Middle East. I watched a CNN report at lunch showing celebrations in eastern Libya and the American reporter was welcomed with open arms. While not hating us is not evidence of inspiration, the very large crowd seemed to view American reporters as being on their side. Refreshing in the face of constant anti-American propaganda.
This is more likely due to the fact that western journalists have been denied entry previously for several years more than anything. I doubt it was due to the fact that we eliminated Saddam.
Maybe because there are people who listen to the internet, are intelligent, and realize that Americans working to help them by spreading the word of their plight =/= the American army. Like, we as Americans hate the terrorists, but we don't hate all the people in the middle east, if we have an ounce of sense. We show them solidarity. Their American brothers and sisters on twitter and the news are not the same as the foolish foreign policy goons that mired us in Iraq.
I really don't think our fighting in Iraq helped much at all. I think our culture, media, and internets helped.
Joe, your dystopian wish-dream world view isn't likely to come true any time soon. A 2009 NYT report is not a basis to invade Saudi Arabia.
. . . Of course, knowing you, you're probably thinking he knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time or such other conspiracy theory hogwash.
And again, because you missed it the first time, if your military force has essentially carte blanche to do what it wishes in a country, then you don't need to invade. Thus we don't need to invade Pakistan.
So, what, exactly was the basis for invading Afghanistan? What is it about Pakistan that gives the US carte blanche to do anything it wants? Do you care to cite a source that says the US has military carte Blanche in Afghanistan? Also, why does the US exercising military carte blanche in Pakistan? Could it be because pakistan is harboring those "folks"? I thought that you've been denying for the last few comments that Pakistan has any involvement with those "folks".
Also, what does timing have to do with your policy? You disdain the BUT article and make a big deal about how GWB might not have had that information, but how is that relevant? Your stated policy is "harboring terrorists cannot stand", not "harboring terrorists cannot stand only during the Bush years.
Finally, ad hominem attacks don't help your case. I haven't cast any aspersions about you being a conspiracy theorist, as you just have with me. I have just used your own words to show that your invasion policy is illogical. It must be, because you won't even defend it yourself.
The Soviet Union did not westernize because of tanks, it did so because its kids wanted blue jeans and rock music. The middle east is totally the same thing, but with freedom and internets.
A bit simple, but I would have to agree 100%. It might be a stretch, but consider that when freedom was brought to Iraq, the relatives that told their families of these things. Few years later, the teenagers and young adults find the internet with Twitter and Facebook and see freedom and liberal (free) government, and the idea forms in their head. From little acorns to revolutions and demands for change grow...
Comments
/hot like a bed of political upheaval
Thaed quote: Hmmmmmmm . . . Afghanistan harboring "folks" = invasion because Thaed says it cannot stand. Saudi Arabia harboring and giving extensive financial support to "folks" != invasion because Thaed says, "Does that mean we should bomb Saudi Arabia? No." See the difference? That's what I'm trying to figure out here.
And again, because you missed it the first time, if your military force has essentially carte blanche to do what it wishes in a country, then you don't need to invade. Thus we don't need to invade Pakistan.
As a side note and back to the point of this thread, maybe our actions in Iraq did help the democracy movement in the Middle East. I watched a CNN report at lunch showing celebrations in eastern Libya and the American reporter was welcomed with open arms. While not hating us is not evidence of inspiration, the very large crowd seemed to view American reporters as being on their side. Refreshing in the face of constant anti-American propaganda.
I really don't think our fighting in Iraq helped much at all. I think our culture, media, and internets helped.
Also, what does timing have to do with your policy? You disdain the BUT article and make a big deal about how GWB might not have had that information, but how is that relevant? Your stated policy is "harboring terrorists cannot stand", not "harboring terrorists cannot stand only during the Bush years.
Finally, ad hominem attacks don't help your case. I haven't cast any aspersions about you being a conspiracy theorist, as you just have with me. I have just used your own words to show that your invasion policy is illogical. It must be, because you won't even defend it yourself.
This will be the centerpiece of my resume.