> Why? You've demonstrated the value of your opinions many times (i.e., not > worth the electrons wasted in reproducing it).
There are people that respect others opinions, myself, and then there are slugs, like you. > Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. But they were funding and training terrorists. > If you're thinking that if "we attack them there, so they won't attack us", that's been shown to be wrong a long time ago. When was the last attack? > If anything the Ba'athists were more against radical jihadism than almost any other group. This was proven wrong by the captured documents. As much as they hated al Qaeda they hated the US more and offered to help them attack the US. > The only real effect that the invasion of Iraq had on AQ was to give them a breathing space. We had them on the run and were near to completely crushing them. Then most of the regular and special forces were removed for the Iraq invasion, that gave AQ and the Taliban the opportunity to regroup. Most of al Qaeda and there wannabees went to Iraq to fight and lost. Now while the headquarters might be rebuilt in Pakistan they have no army left. > Now the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan and have all but isolated Kandehar, and have possibly retaken many of the Pashtun provinces in the south. Taliban != al Qaeda But since most jihadist went to Iraq to die shouldn't Afghanistan be easier now? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:264628 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
