Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Support is not a black and white word in terms of meaning.
I don't think any but a lunatic fringe would be giving any support like money, arms, info, or physical support allowing the terrorists to be better terrorists.
I do think many are quite happy that we are taking casualties and think the terrorists cause is legitimate. This doesn't include the group of indirect supporters who want our troops out regardless of the effect on the Iraqi people. It becomes a situation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
|
The Reagan and Bush '41 administrations, with the help of first, Rumsfeld, and then under the DOD oversight of Cheney, apparently did just what you are describing, with reference to Saddam and his terrorist activities, starting a war of aggression against his neighbor, Iran, and then gassing his own people, with U.S. bio weapons stocks, advice, technical support, and even with the U.S. supplied crop dusting helicopters to deliver the biological agents to the skies over at least one Kurdish village.
Did Reagan qualify for your "lunatic fringe" catagory when he signed the secret order to supply the terrorist government of Iran with anti-tank missles and other military hardware, repeatedly, while simultaneously supporting Saddam? How about the secret and, contrarty to the stated policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, effort to curry favor with Iran by secretly supplying it's military with anti-tank weapons in the hope that it would influence Iran to help free American hostages held by factions allied with the Iranian government. Isn't a blanket policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists necessary in order to discourage further acts of terrorism that might otherwise be encouraged if terrorists observe that their acts will influence concessions?
Can you consider that there is a legitmate reason to believe that the Bush administration never actually held a position that the "liberation of the Iraqi people", was a goal, in and of itself, was worth the expense of the life of even one American soldier, let alone, 1660 lives and ten thousand seriously wounded, a weakening of U.S. ability to attract and maintain the best recruits and non-com officers in it's ranks?
Can you read the above report by Newsweek's Baghdad Bureau chief on the state of things in Iraq, and not consider that labelling objectors to U.S. military policy in Iraq as possible terrorist "sympathizers or enablers, especially when viewed alongside the history of statements and actions of U.S. administrations of the past 25 years, may not be the most compelling or effective ways to counter my arguments and conclusions?