On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Appropriate action against appropriate enemies is not turning the > other cheek. Not a single Afghan attacked us. The thousands of > innocents killed and the destabilization of an entire country with > absolutely nothing done that made us any safer. that was all revenge. If you can't visit revenge on the people directly that you want, or in the manner that you want, you get revenge on whomever you can. We can't find Bin Laden or any real legitimate Taliban targets? Target those who "harbored him"....and then bomb away as necessary. I would argue that this direct action was much more about revenge than money. There's no money in AFghanistan. Sure, money considerations probably played into decisions to spare other countries. > Bin Laden may have > been in Afghanistan, but his power base was in Pakistan, and Bush et > al cozened up the Pakistani government because it in their financial > and political interest to do so. > I dunno.....if Bin Laden had been harbored and trained in Pakistan....i think we would have attacked Pakistan...though I think Pakistan probably would have handed him over before it came to that. > That war was never about revenge for 9/11 - it was about greed, as was > the Iraq war. If wanna know the real reasons, follow the money. > I guess i disagree...at least initially. Initially, it was all about revenge. Money certainly became a factor soon thereafter, though. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351257 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
