WWIII Prediction

[tailfins]

First of all, yes, folks, I'm returning. Not sure how long it'll be for, or if what I'll have to say on the subject will go down well (you'll get my PM soon, Jim). However, for this moment, I want to reply to this post.

Here's my take, Drummond if you are interested. It often pays not to care. As you know, I CAN'T care in the sense you know of the word. The best I can do, is read a list of things that people do when they care and do them. For me, courtesy is hard work. Don't give people that hard work when they don't deserve it. The difference between me and Adam Lanza is that my dad took me to court with him (as a cop) twice a month and conditioned me to ask "Is it legal?" before each and every action. Don't so much as pour a bowl of cereal before asking yourself "Is it legal?" My mom took me to church every Sunday which resulted in asking "Will doing it incur God's anger?" in addition to "Is it legal?" You owe less than courteous people the minimum consideration required by law, nothing more. There's no limit to how low I will go if needed. See the cage as an example. Perhaps you should try doing the same. In consideration to Jim, I avoid posting things that impede new members joining the board or might result in the banner ad company cancelling this board's account, but that's as far as my inhibition goes. Anyone willing to go lower than I do isn't even showing that minimal consideration for DP.

[Drummond]

You'll probably find The Argentinians had invaded the Falklands, so we had to take action and Hitler started invading Europe. If we had to apply the same situation as Bush/Blair with Iraq to the two former examples, then we would have bombed Argentina and Germany before they kicked off !!

The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.

it's bit them in the butt !!

.. at LEFTIE insistence that 'they' incur consequences for defending their countries' interests ... yes. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, Bush hasn't incurred them. Bush is not answerable to the Chilcot Inquiry, nor has he been in any way prosecuted for doing his Presidential duty !!!

I believe in two things, keep ourselves to ourselves by keeping our noses out of the affairs of other nations and multiply defence spending 10 fold. History provides evidence why this should be the case.

So, if another 9/11 was visited upon America, we should do nothing to show them support ? REALLY ?

What you're advocating for Britain is a bunker mentality, in the hope that the world's ills will never be visited upon us. That terrorists will be 'kind enough' to always leave us alone.

Three points: one, such an approach means we will lack a degree of control over our own destiny, since it'd mean we couldn't exert any influence or power over those, abroad, wishing us harm. Two, terrorists, in targeting us, need only succeed once, whereas a bunker-mentality defence needs to ALWAYS succeed. Three .. 9/11 was nothing that America had earned .. it was attacked without provocation. So, in your scenario, could we be, in the UK, without preceding pre-emptive prevention being so much as a possibility.

So if history teaches us anything, it's (1) always be ultra-vigilant, and (2) do what you MUST to fight and defeat an enemy, before they defeat YOU.

[Nonnie]

The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.



.. at LEFTIE insistence that 'they' incur consequences for defending their countries' interests ... yes. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, Bush hasn't incurred them. Bush is not answerable to the Chilcot Inquiry, nor has he been in any way prosecuted for doing his Presidential duty !!!



So, if another 9/11 was visited upon America, we should do nothing to show them support ? REALLY ?

What you're advocating for Britain is a bunker mentality, in the hope that the world's ills will never be visited upon us. That terrorists will be 'kind enough' to always leave us alone.

Three points: one, such an approach means we will lack a degree of control over our own destiny, since it'd mean we couldn't exert any influence or power over those, abroad, wishing us harm. Two, terrorists, in targeting us, need only succeed once, whereas a bunker-mentality defence needs to ALWAYS succeed. Three .. 9/11 was nothing that America had earned .. it was attacked without provocation. So, in your scenario, could we be, in the UK, without preceding pre-emptive prevention being so much as a possibility.

So if history teaches us anything, it's (1) always be ultra-vigilant, and (2) do what you MUST to fight and defeat an enemy, before they defeat YOU.

Sorry, I can't debate these hypothetical beliefs and views that I'm supposed to have. When it's the poster and not the argument under question, it just detracts from the issue. The DF has taught me to steer clear, so I'll leave it here.

[gabosaurus]

The point of origin of the War on Terror was 9/11. Terrorist scum had already 'kicked off' with that.

Saddam and his regime was a legitimate target in the follow-up 'War on Terror'. Additionally, Saddam had 'kicked off', repeatedly, by his repeated refusals to cooperate with the UN. The Iraq invasion followed from Saddam's previous behaviour ... as well as the UN's inability to reach any useful outcome in pursuance of its own Resolution. The basis for invasion itself came from that same Resolution.

First of all, welcome back Drummond. Stay firm and don't allow idiots and rapscallions to drive you away.

That having been said, the "UN sanctions" were a straw man for Bush's plan to get rid of Saddam. Which he was planning before he took office.
If Bush wanted to REALLY avenge the 9-11 attacks, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Saudis were issued a blanket pardon in exchange for their oil fortune, which the Bushies had a deep stake in. In return, the Saudis have continued to fund terrorism and continue to this day. Knowing the U.S. government will always turn a blind eye.

The "War on Terror" was bogus from the beginning. Bush always knew bin-Laden was hiding in Pakistan. But eliminating him would remove the evil Boogeyman in the Closet that symbolized was the WOT was about. It was all about bin-Laden killing your pets and raping your daughters.

[Gunny]

Under the EU, they would probably receive a years sentence, out after 6 months for good behaviour. With Iraq, the punishment would be more meaningful and fit for purpose.

We got the death penalty with an express lane for dirtbags.

[NightTrain]

Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM 'accepted Libya was a bigger threat'.

I am unfamiliar with the British Chilcot inquiry... but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Ghaddafi was a very bad man. Reagan bombed the snot out of him back in the '80s over being behind the bombing of a civilian airliner, remember? After that incident, Ghadaffi scaled back his blatant terrorist activities in a big way.

It also sent a message to other like-minded dictators that engaging in State-sponsored terrorism was an unwise move, because we know where you live and have the means to reach you and blow your house up.

So the next course of action for any industrious dictator with terrorism on his mind was the notion of 'plausible deniability' of terrorism via proxies. The palestinians work cheap and don't have much going on other than blowing themselves and Israelis up, so they're a favorite resource - just help fan the flames of religious hate and presto! Instant volunteers. Even better if it's a suicide mission, because it's hard to interrogate dead fanatics.

Saddam knew this, and it was why he was paying the families of terrorist suicide bombers $25,000 on completion of their mission. That's supporting terrorism by any definition.

The Chilcot Inquiry had also unearthed top-secret Government papers suggesting that Bush and Blair made a pact against Iraq, but Blair was told that it was Libya that was a greater threat. The intelligence said that if Iraq had any WMD, they would probably fit in the back of a truck. Blair went to see Bush and came back star-struck by Bush (Blair was Bush's puppet on a string). So he came out with a pack of lies to justify removing Saddam Hussein. No WMD were found and after Gaddafi had been removed, still no WMD.

On the TV, Blair was trying to convince the public by claiming the sheer number of WMD Saddam was hiding, but the intelligence he had received claimed otherwise.

But there were WMDs found. Lots of them. They're still cropping up to this day.

Remember how the UN inspectors would show up at a facility and were refused entrance while convoys of trucks were hauling loads out of the back? The UN team stood there watching them all leave, then when the last truck left, they were allowed to enter and do their inspection. That happened a lot.

How many UN resolutions can be defied like Saddam did before it's viewed as a useless body? The League of Nations failed because there wasn't any teeth. A stern wagging of the accusatory finger doesn't prevent a ruthless dictator from doing anything.

Beyond that, everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons because he openly used them multiple times before against his enemy-of-the-moment. Sure, he said he didn't have any, but history said he did.

Bush and Blair (and a great many other world leaders, btw) did the right thing. I'm still bewildered by anyone saying there wasn't any WMDs because they were there and some of them found. Fortunately, there is a shelf life associated with such weapons and soon they'll be as dangerous as baby food in comparison to their original strength, but nevertheless it had to be done.

In my book, these are war crimes due to their lying causing the sheer number of Iraq's and Allie soldiers killed. Bush and Blair should be on trial in Iraq and sentenced by Iraqi law. Now we're suffering the ramifications of their actions.

They didn't lie, and the intel was valid. Iraq has no jurisdiction whatsoever on an American President or a British PM... that's like saying Japan should have been allowed to try Truman after we beat them in WWII. I don't get that line of logic.

The ramifications we're seeing right now is the result of an incredibly incompetent US President who abandoned Iraq and failed to act in other neighborhood situations as they developed. The head in the sand approach while hoping for the best didn't really pan out. Obama left a vacuum and ISIS filled it.

Yes, there are other world leaders that should have stepped up and started fixing things, but that didn't happen either. To be honest, we Americans aren't very confident of European leaders these days to courageously do what needs to be done. In other words, if something needs to be done, it's going to be the USA leading the way and doing the brunt of the dirty work and financing the lion's share of the operation.

We don't want our Soldiers getting killed, and we don't want to have to be the ones killing the bad guys. We don't want to spend hundreds of billions doing it. It gets the USA criticized roundly from the very people we're trying to protect. It's a thankless job.

We'd love to wash our hands of the international problems that crop up because of Very Bad Men doing Very Bad Things, but if you look around the world right now you'll see the result of that approach.

This is a map of where WMDs were found in Iraq :




Here's a few links regarding the WMDs that supposedly were never there :

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...ds-found-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-injured.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...ol1_rsi-06.htm

Here's some in Baghdad being produced in 2013 that were intended for use in Britain : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...actory-1927158

From 3 weeks ago, Germany reported ISIS used WMDs - possibly from Syria, which is where many convoys of trucks were observed heading from Iraq prior to the invasion : http://www.thelocal.de/20150813/germ...attack-in-iraq


There's a lot more links you can google up. There were definitely WMDs present and being actively hidden.

[fj1200]

Survival.

They don't threaten our survival.

But I believe that the group equipped and/or funded by the USA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan later turned out to for Al Qaeda, if that's correct.

That is not correct.

[Drummond]

Although I would like to side with your camp on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree because every time a country goes in to sort a 'supposed' threat or problem, it's done halfheartedly and thus resulting in more problems than enough. Just look at the instability in the world, and this is the start of it. The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine to hit hard.

As you wish, although they do say that prevention is better than cure. If, as you say, 'The Islamic nut jobs plan for more years than we imagine' .. then that surely argues for my case, not yours ? Why not hit them long before they act, before, in fact, they can act ?

The instability in the world is caused by those PLANNING for it, not those who 'dare' to REACT to it.

If you object to countries going in to sort a supposed threat or problem, then it follows that you thought it right for the US to not take pre-emptive action against the various terrorist training camps the Taliban permitted in Afghanistan ? In which case, you'd have what America did have, on 11th September 2001 ... terrorist camps able to plan, train for, then execute, their attacks on that very day against the US. NOT taking pre-emptive action, indeed, being complacent, did its bit to allow the Twin Towers atrocity.

[Drummond]

I am unfamiliar with the British Chilcot inquiry... but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Ghaddafi was a very bad man. Reagan bombed the snot out of him back in the '80s over being behind the bombing of a civilian airliner, remember? After that incident, Ghadaffi scaled back his blatant terrorist activities in a big way.

It also sent a message to other like-minded dictators that engaging in State-sponsored terrorism was an unwise move, because we know where you live and have the means to reach you and blow your house up.

So the next course of action for any industrious dictator with terrorism on his mind was the notion of 'plausible deniability' of terrorism via proxies. The palestinians work cheap and don't have much going on other than blowing themselves and Israelis up, so they're a favorite resource - just help fan the flames of religious hate and presto! Instant volunteers. Even better if it's a suicide mission, because it's hard to interrogate dead fanatics.

Saddam knew this, and it was why he was paying the families of terrorist suicide bombers $25,000 on completion of their mission. That's supporting terrorism by any definition.



But there were WMDs found. Lots of them. They're still cropping up to this day.

Remember how the UN inspectors would show up at a facility and were refused entrance while convoys of trucks were hauling loads out of the back? The UN team stood there watching them all leave, then when the last truck left, they were allowed to enter and do their inspection. That happened a lot.

How many UN resolutions can be defied like Saddam did before it's viewed as a useless body? The League of Nations failed because there wasn't any teeth. A stern wagging of the accusatory finger doesn't prevent a ruthless dictator from doing anything.

Beyond that, everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons because he openly used them multiple times before against his enemy-of-the-moment. Sure, he said he didn't have any, but history said he did.

Bush and Blair (and a great many other world leaders, btw) did the right thing. I'm still bewildered by anyone saying there wasn't any WMDs because they were there and some of them found. Fortunately, there is a shelf life associated with such weapons and soon they'll be as dangerous as baby food in comparison to their original strength, but nevertheless it had to be done.



They didn't lie, and the intel was valid. Iraq has no jurisdiction whatsoever on an American President or a British PM... that's like saying Japan should have been allowed to try Truman after we beat them in WWII. I don't get that line of logic.

The ramifications we're seeing right now is the result of an incredibly incompetent US President who abandoned Iraq and failed to act in other neighborhood situations as they developed. The head in the sand approach while hoping for the best didn't really pan out. Obama left a vacuum and ISIS filled it.

Yes, there are other world leaders that should have stepped up and started fixing things, but that didn't happen either. To be honest, we Americans aren't very confident of European leaders these days to courageously do what needs to be done. In other words, if something needs to be done, it's going to be the USA leading the way and doing the brunt of the dirty work and financing the lion's share of the operation.

We don't want our Soldiers getting killed, and we don't want to have to be the ones killing the bad guys. We don't want to spend hundreds of billions doing it. It gets the USA criticized roundly from the very people we're trying to protect. It's a thankless job.

We'd love to wash our hands of the international problems that crop up because of Very Bad Men doing Very Bad Things, but if you look around the world right now you'll see the result of that approach.

This is a map of where WMDs were found in Iraq :




Here's a few links regarding the WMDs that supposedly were never there :

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...ds-found-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-injured.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...ol1_rsi-06.htm

Here's some in Baghdad being produced in 2013 that were intended for use in Britain : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...actory-1927158

From 3 weeks ago, Germany reported ISIS used WMDs - possibly from Syria, which is where many convoys of trucks were observed heading from Iraq prior to the invasion : http://www.thelocal.de/20150813/germ...attack-in-iraq


There's a lot more links you can google up. There were definitely WMDs present and being actively hidden.

The belief that no WMD's were ever found, NightTrain, is something that nearly every Brit buys into. Santorum's press conference in 2006 on that matter received no coverage at all over here. I only know about it myself because I had access to Fox News broadcasts at that time. Probably very few Brits would ever, now, believe that any were found.

Note that the Daily Mail report is dated around eight years after that Press conference.

[jimnyc]

Bush and Blair did not lie, IMO, and no one has ever really proven otherwise. They reported based on the international communities intelligence, the intelligence that was eerily similar around the world. The intelligence didn't pan out perfectly, but that doesn't mean these folks lied to us. Here in the USA, we have national security committee, comprised of both republicans and democrats. At the time, it was lead by democrats. They too saw the intelligence first hand and also voted based on what they saw. Blaming folks AFTER the fact is easy to do. But given the raw intel, the majority here in the US, and the international community, almost all saw the same and responded the same.

And there were enough WMD weapons found to kill hundreds of thousands, or more, depending on who used it and their expertise. The non-weaponized chemicals that were accounted for in1998, and mysteriously disappeared up inspectors return in 2001, have still never been accounted for. And these weren't just a few chemicals, but TONS of chemicals. Once weaponized they have a shorter shelf life, but much of it would have lasted a long, long time in the manner in which it was stored. Saddam REFUSED to account for their disappearance, and even inspectors called it out as a material breach, right up until the invasion. But I suppose that's just to be forgotten.

Nope, they could have killed millions. Saddam played a cat and mouse game with weapons that were ALREADY BAGGED AND TAGGED AND ACCOUNTED FOR and then went missing. If he complied, end of story. But KNOWING they were there, and knowing they could potentially kill millions, the international community wanted them destroyed. Saddam thought otherwise. We went in to hopefully find what he did with them and to ensure he didn't get to use them. I would imagine a shitload of it was hidden in various locations (hence NT's map showing such), and as feared from the beginning, much of it went to Syria.

Some will now say that ISIS has a lot of these weapons. Some will say that it's the fault of the US that they have them, because of the invasion. I say its the fault of Iraq and their community that failed to give them to inspectors, those that hid them from inspectors, and those that laughed and refused to work along with the international community.

[NightTrain]

The belief that no WMD's were ever found, NightTrain, is something that nearly every Brit buys into. Santorum's press conference in 2006 on that matter received no coverage at all over here. I only know about it myself because I had access to Fox News broadcasts at that time. Probably very few Brits would ever, now, believe that any were found.

Note that the Daily Mail report is dated around eight years after that Press conference.

I'm really at a loss to understand why there aren't any objective or right-leaning news organizations over there. Free enterprise should strongly suggest that there is a need for another source of news that doesn't have that counter-clockwise spin to it. Fox completely dominates the ratings of its' competitors by a large margin. MSNBC has extremely poor performance and they cater to the typical moonbat. CNN isn't as far left, but they're still on that side of the spectrum and they get destroyed in the ratings against Fox as well.

America can't be that different from our European cousins... there has to be a sizable conservative base of the population whose needs aren't being met? Surely there's a lot of money to be made, but for some reason that eludes me that endeavor hasn't materialized.

I actually like the BBC for it's entertainment value and visit it frequently. Sometimes they're way ahead of American media on events, sometimes behind... but they do delve much more deeply into a story than American media typically do. I simply dismiss the political bias out of hand and sometimes they uncover things that our media fails to report, deliberate or not.

[Drummond]

I'm really at a loss to understand why there aren't any objective or right-leaning news organizations over there. Free enterprise should strongly suggest that there is a need for another source of news that doesn't have that counter-clockwise spin to it. Fox completely dominates the ratings of its' competitors by a large margin. MSNBC has extremely poor performance and they cater to the typical moonbat. CNN isn't as far left, but they're still on that side of the spectrum and they get destroyed in the ratings against Fox as well.

America can't be that different from our European cousins... there has to be a sizable conservative base of the population whose needs aren't being met? Surely there's a lot of money to be made, but for some reason that eludes me that endeavor hasn't materialized.

I actually like the BBC for it's entertainment value and visit it frequently. Sometimes they're way ahead of American media on events, sometimes behind... but they do delve much more deeply into a story than American media typically do. I simply dismiss the political bias out of hand and sometimes they uncover things that our media fails to report, deliberate or not.

It might be relative .. though I'd argue that the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, all qualify as 'right' leaning. The BBC is broadly Leftie, plays at even-handedness, but pushes Left-wing sensibilities nonetheless, for all they're worth.

Bear in mind that the BBC has a very long-standing 'good' reputation, that broadcasting, here, began ALL broadcasting here, and is considered the British yardstick from which everything else here is measured. That they're assured of stability as a broadcaster, thanks to the legal insistence they be paid from our license fee (to refuse to pay, if you watch ANY television, is a criminal offence) no doubt enshrines their position of 'official respect'.

The BBC has been giving saturation coverage to the ongoing migrant crisis affecting much of Europe. Their coverage centres on the 'plight' of these refugees, and little if any consideration to anything else. It's unrelenting stuff, with reporters placed in areas where they arrive, going into enormous detail about how arduous their experiences have been. All of that will heighten sympathy for them, leaving no room for alternative views. Consequently, from this 'fair' reporting, even politicians have to consider themselves under pressure to do what the media pushes for, and so ... they HAVE been. Cameron's relented, is going to allow many thousands more to arrive here than he'd been arguing for previously.

This in turn strengthens the Leftie case for saying we need to be more lax on these things. No doubt that opinion will take hold.

NightTrain, I'm now sharing my time with a British forum. On that forum, I issued a challenge, just yesterday. I said .. to you Left-wingers here, I want to know if any of you will set any upper limit to the number of immigrants the UK should ever take within our territory.

No Leftie responded with any admission that they'd ever apply ANY limits. Just the one responded, and repeatedly. That response was to post a link to an 'e-petition' which demanded the Government take in more immigrants.

This is all that our Left are willing to think on the matter, and they get leadership from outfits like the BBC. Literally .. NO limits AT ALL to immigration, so far as the Left's concerned.

[Drummond]

Here's my take, Drummond if you are interested. It often pays not to care. As you know, I CAN'T care in the sense you know of the word. The best I can do, is read a list of things that people do when they care and do them. For me, courtesy is hard work. Don't give people that hard work when they don't deserve it. The difference between me and Adam Lanza is that my dad took me to court with him (as a cop) twice a month and conditioned me to ask "Is it legal?" before each and every action. Don't so much as pour a bowl of cereal before asking yourself "Is it legal?" My mom took me to church every Sunday which resulted in asking "Will doing it incur God's anger?" in addition to "Is it legal?" You owe less than courteous people the minimum consideration required by law, nothing more. There's no limit to how low I will go if needed. See the cage as an example. Perhaps you should try doing the same. In consideration to Jim, I avoid posting things that impede new members joining the board or might result in the banner ad company cancelling this board's account, but that's as far as my inhibition goes. Anyone willing to go lower than I do isn't even showing that minimal consideration for DP.

It's tempting to answer this, but actually I'll refrain from doing so. Thanks for your commenting - if I reciprocated as I feel like doing, I'd be opening up a rather old can of worms.

I'd actually hate to have to consign a greater proportion of my posting to the Cage than is absolutely called for, so in that sense I resist the suggestion. That said -- we do agree on one point. If I'm convinced that my 'debating opponent' will go 'low' in his or her posting, then I, too, will stoop to some very low posting myself, and will therefore consign that stuff to the Cage.

- If I must, that is -- if such a need exists. And if it does, that reflects on my opposition, not me.

Anyone wanting to fight me should understand that I will never back down, ever, if I see myself to be in the right.

[Drummond]

First of all, welcome back Drummond. Stay firm and don't allow idiots and rapscallions to drive you away.

Thank you. I'll do what my conscience, and my sense of fair play, tells me is appropriate.

That having been said, the "UN sanctions" were a straw man for Bush's plan to get rid of Saddam. Which he was planning before he took office.

Isn't this Leftie conspiracy-theory stuff ? I thought that GW Bush wanted a Presidency that veered AWAY from foreign policy considerations, but that 9/11 forced him to think again ?

If Bush wanted to REALLY avenge the 9-11 attacks, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Saudis were issued a blanket pardon in exchange for their oil fortune, which the Bushies had a deep stake in. In return, the Saudis have continued to fund terrorism and continue to this day. Knowing the U.S. government will always turn a blind eye.

Firstly, are you saying that Al Qaeda terrorist camps should have been left alone ?

Secondly, Saudi Arabia was and is officially an ally of the US, and contributes a lot of its oil. You'd have preferred Bush to jeopardise America's oil imports ? What damage do you think that would've caused ?

The "War on Terror" was bogus from the beginning. Bush always knew bin-Laden was hiding in Pakistan. But eliminating him would remove the evil Boogeyman in the Closet that symbolized was the WOT was about. It was all about bin-Laden killing your pets and raping your daughters.

This is just a load of rubbish. The War on Terror was caused by a very real attack on America. Yes, that attack really happened ! Bush and your Government had every right to respond to it, and respond, they did .. and .. APPROPRIATELY. And bin Laden was only in Pakistan after the bombing of Afghanistan. In case you've forgotten, Bush gave the Taliban two weeks to hand bin Laden over. The attack on Afghanistan commenced WHEN THEY REFUSED TO.

[Nonnie]

I fail to see how stirring up the hornets nest is classed as, "Prevention is better than cure" because that has really been the result.