Originally posted by bilmore
Quote:
|
The strategy of invasion finally takes the fight to the peole who promise to bring the fight to us. We should wait until their time? That's stupid. Take the damn jungle first, especially when they claim the jungle first. You want to run a reactive war? You lose. We've done that. We can just wait for the medivacs, I suppose, and claim bodycounts . . . .
|
Invading Iraq doesn't take the fight to the Islamists. A muscular policy of scouring Afganistan and Pakistan would have.
As for Iraq v assassinations. An aggressive policy of assassinations isn't reactive. I mean serious assassinations, equivalent to killing terrorist leaders where we find them, even if they hide among women, children and old people.
As for invading Iraq v invading Iran. You can't creditbly claim Iraq had closer ties to ANY terrorists than Iran does to Hezbollah. You also can't credibly claim Iraq was closer to nuclear weapons than Iran. Invading Iraq was stupid. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be fired for recommending than nonsense.
