should we continue the war on terror?

[Nathan Poe]

Now that we've started it we should finish it...

Agreed, but let's not pretend it's anything more noble than cleaning up the mess we made.

Especially in Iraq, things are very unstable and if we leave then it's very possible that someone will come to power that will make Saddam look like a baby puppy.

And who's to say they won't vote in one of his former cronies somewhere down the line? What do we do: Invade again?

Until we're done fixing all the mess we've made we should continue the war on terror.

Iraq: We broke it, we bought it.

 

[BobbieDog]

The wars which Nazism started were not stopped until the society that bore it was crushed.
The "war on terror" is as much an ideological creation, as much an epiphenomenon of a project of global hegemony, as anyhting which they Nazis did.
Attacking Iraq gave the lie to the claim that this war on terror was some countering response to the events of 9/11.
Rather the events of 9/11 have been exploited opportunistically to wreak change at home and abroad.
We may well have enemies. We may well need to confront and defeat these enemies. But, we neither see these enemies through the optics of the "war on terror": nor do we come to act such as to defeat our enemies, through what we do in the "war on terror" perspective.

 

[jgarden]

The question remains, does the war in Iraq have any direct connection with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? According to the findings of the 9/11 Commission and virtually every other informed source, except the Bush Administration, the answer is "NO!" In all probability, America may have deposed a ruthless dictator, but committed troops to occupy a country with no tracable connections with terrorism or 9/11. Unfortunately, this should of no great surprise, given the lack of WMD. Meanwhile, the real "terrorists," are gradually regrouping, hindered only by a scaled back American force while the bulk of US forces are bogged down in Iraq..