I suppose I don't quite see how supporting Bin Laden's activities was ever good, how could someone ever justify supporting a man like that?Originally posted by j2k4@1 August 2004 - 18:51
Okay.
What you are saying is that because the U.S. helped Osama bin Laden in his efforts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, one would quite naturally and logically conclude Osama would eventually turn against the U.S.?
9/11 aside (I must say you have a unique view of the event), we still could not have "jumped" much more slowly than we did in Iraq; well over a year and beaucoup U.N. resolutions later?
Clearly he never fought for America, but rather for himself, and the methods he employs most certainly seems a tad, how to put this, inaccurate. Or are you saying that his actions in afghanistan did not entail any collateral damage, and that he always hit those responsible for what was done to the country?
Putting weapons in the hands of fanatics can't be a good thing, even if they are pointing the other way, I should think.
As for Iraq, can you truly say the wait was long enough? what with the fact that they turned out to not have weapons of mass destruction.
Having said that, my problem lies with why things were done rather than with the fact that they were done at all in Iraq, taking down Saddam wasn't what I'd call a bad thing. But I'll always wonder about the why.
Bookmarks