Originally posted by sxecrow
You show the ignorance of so many more in this country - that the best defense is a good offense. When you stir the hornets nest, you get stung. What do you think he's doing?
I tend to think that he's finally stepped up to the plate and is being proactive in protecting the US and its interests. You have offered (in essence), as have others in this thread, that the best way to handle this is to do nothing, and things will naturally get better on their own. I couldn't disagree more strongly, and it is not because of ignorance.
Let's look at the short list (tongue firmly implanted in cheek) of terrorist attacks, over the last ten years, prior to 9/11, just so I can get onto my point:
1993, World Trade Center garage bombing, NYC
1995, attack on U.S. military advisors in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
1996, Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia
1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya
1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
2000, bombing of U.S.S. Cole, Aden, Yemen
Now, what do all of these events have in common? In a word, it's "nothing." Yep, NOTHING demonstrably was done to any of the responsible entities in response to any of these attacks and look what happened. The attacks only increased. I would bet that in the ten years prior to the first WTC attack, terrorist action directly against the US was much more limited. It's my opinion that it was only after seeing that the US failed to use any type of force to answer any of these assaults against the US, that extremist groups felt they could continue their actions unchecked.
Originally posted by sxecrow
I seem to remember Clinton firing a few missles back in 1994 against terrorist organizations.
No, in 1998 Clinton fired missiles into Sudan and destroyed an aspirin factory in what many feel was a "wag the dog" attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky matter. But, in (edit typo to 1998) Clinton did send cruise missiles into Iraq in an attempt to get Hussein. Ironically, in his speech justifying that attack, Clinton offered the same reasons that Bush ultimately did for this current war. The funny part is that there were no protests from the left then, as compared to now, despite the nearly identical rationales for force. Before you say it, I'll acknowledge that a few cursory missiles being lobbed into Iraq is not the same as the full scale military buildup and action as has been taken now. But, after all of the recent years of inaction (I won't say it, but go ahead, look at the dates, and guess who might have been in office at the time), it's about time that the US finally started to look after itself.