posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:19 PM
I just watched some MSNBC and got kinda angered at some of the "experts" they had on. Basically they were talking about the Attempted London car
bombings and two of them took the discussion to where we should be fighting the war on terror.
Both of the speakers said that we shouldn't be in Iraq as "all we are doing is creating more terrorists, we should be in Afghanistan cause that's
where Al Qaeda is". They were basically saying "If we weren't in Iraq there wouldn't be these terrorist attacks/attempts.
You may have your own opinion as to the Iraq war, that's fine. But the speakers seem to imply that all we have to do is just really focus on
Afghanistan and the whole Al Qaeda network will just go away and we won't be "creating more terrorists".
It's not like the Islamic world likes us being in Afghanistan either. I intensely dislike Al Qaeda for attacking us and I am all for going after
it's support mechanisms as well. Using the speakers logic wouldn't it just be better to leave Afghanistan as well and since we wouldn't be
attacking any Islamic countries, Al Qaeda would just grow poppies and be a non factor.
The Jihadis that Al Qaeda inspire around the globe will not stop attacking the West IMO, we must battle AQ and other radicalizing forces in the
region. If we were in just Afghanistan, all the new recruits of AQ would be going up there rather than Iraq. If the Islamic world doesn't like it
then I suggest they clean up their own messes (there are multiple ones) before someone else really does.
By having AQ fight us in Iraq they are actually turning off both the Shia and Sunni populations in Iraq. They now hate AQ for killing civilians just
as much if not more then the coalition forces in areas of Iraq.
What are your thoughts as to where and how the next stages of the WOT should be fought or not fought?