Please god, before you say "NATO troops should be _______" review what NATO troops are.
Look up East Timor. NATO is not our friend, not our ally, and definately not in the business of bringing freedom and independence.
Look, if Bush was such a bad guy, then don't you think
we would have found WMD in Iraq? I mean if he's such an evil guy, and his cabinet are so evil - I would think that we WOULD "find" WMD in Iraq, even if we had it planted.
You're forgetting, or more likely ignoring, Hans Blix's reports of his inspectors "waiting for hours, sometimes days at the gates of a facility while trucks were brought in, filled, and whisked away before (they) could enter".
How about the gas attacks on coalition troops since the beginning of the Iraq conflict ? Those are WMDs.
And Iraq's threat is not about missiles - That's not terrorism. Iraq's threat about a jihadist carrying a dirty nuke into a major american city. That's terrorism, and that is why it is still called "The war on terror".
That fact is, for one reason or not, we have NOT been attacked on US soil - which means that Bush's plan, regardless of how much people bitch about being infringed upon,
is working! You would think, again, that if he were such an evil guy he would stage all sorts of shit to keep us at bay and complacent. At the murmurs of liberals "This is bullshit" we would have had a mysterious "Attack" on, say, a NY Train station. But we haven't.
You guys are looking for reasons to call conspiracy or to call him evil - but those reasons are evading you because if he truly was the man that everyone says he is, we would be in a "V for Vendetta" type of lock-down. And for all of "his" government spying programs, his measures are not even 1/32 of Kafka, Machiavelli, Hitler, Pol-Pot, or Stalin. And regardless of the loss of american life (Which needs to be reiterated: Fewer americans die in Iraq / Afghanistan than those that die of violent crimes in Detroit) the effect that these lost lives have had on the world is profound, and
completely ignored by the left.
And that's a shame. Because these people, whether they protect oil pipelines or water pipelines, whether they are snipers in Baghdad or guards at Abu Graib, they have had an effect on the security of the entire world.
You see, Jihad isn't against the US, particularly. It's against non-muslims. Which is why Spain, France, Sweden (Yes, SWEDEN!) and western Russia are plagued by it more than us.
They are not specifically fighting a war against the US. They are fighting a war against non-muslims. We knew this since 1979, or earlier. We have been lucky to have had the defense systems that Reagan, Bush and Bush have implemented to avoid attack for so long.
And they realise, and have stated flat out (Each of them) that America is MORE secure with it's liberties, than without. And they cited terrorism in Russia - where if you even walk up to a border checkpoint and
look suspicious, you're shot dead. All of the evidence points to "More lock downs does not mean more security", and I'm so glad that Bush and his cabinet realise this.
-> Steve
Quoted post[/post]]
Im not disagreeing with you, but NATO troops should be in afghanistan if they are in any country, the problem is, the attack wasnt [officially] government supported.
The Taliban officially supported Al Quaida. Sharia Law and all, The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan.