|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On 28 Jun 2004 01:06:55 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?
Dave
It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.
A gang of criminal thugs which are covertly supported by more than a
few countries. They smile to our faces when we give them our money,
then use these thugs to stab us in the back for our cultural beliefs.
Like weeds, you can clip off the stems but the weed will keep growing
back. If you don't get to the root, you won't kill the weed. We have
to find and eliminate the support networks that give these thugs any
power. Without that they might as well stand in the desert and throw
rocks.
If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address
the problem?
As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently)
attacking.
Those who allow these thugs to operate inside their country need to be
made aware of the situation. Then they can either help us, or stand
out of the way. Unfortunately that paints us (helped by leftist
propaganda and spin) as "aggressors", and not the "Weed killers" that
we are.
Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
While there is no credible connection between the 9/11 attacks and Al
Qaeda, there IS credible evidence that they have colluded on other
projects, including the trafficking of arms to the "thugs", and
housing training grounds. There is also evidence that Iraq had some
involvement with the Oklahoma City bombing.
There is evidence that there are links to other Arab countries as
well, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. We can't fight such a large
war, so we have to do it piece by piece. Iraq was a logical choice for
many reasons. The most prominent most likely has to do with
establishing a western style democracy, which is the chemotherapy to
the Islamic fundamentalist cancer which feed the thugs. The second
important reason is securing a source for oil should other sources
become disrupted when the next phase of the war commences.
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.
Who is letting anyone run free? Just because the news is dominated by
liberals digging up more and more mud to sling at Bush (instead of
condemning our enemies), and concentrating on what's going wrong in
Iraq, that doesn't mean that the search for Al Qaeda and OBL is not
still a priority. We keep taking out key members every couple of
weeks. But those stories appear as a quick blip on the radar and are
quickly overshadowed by another round of pictures of so called "abuse"
in Iraqi prisons, or some other disgruntled former government official
tries to earn his 15 minutes of fame by slinging mud at the
administration.
Dave
|