Quote:
Originally posted by dd74
It's not as much about actually capturing OBL as it is the semantics of his capture, spoken by Bush after 9/11. Once, as Americans, we were led to believe he was the reason for the war on terror, and somehow we have it in the backs of our heads in lieu of the increasing death rates of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, that his capture will end the aggression, or at least somehow abate it.
I don't know, though; it seems what was the paradigm of a justified war has fallen into increasingly unjustified territory.
|
I am not sure how you got that impression. I certainly never had that notion.
Quite frankly, I don't think I ever heard "Osama" and "Iraq" vocalized together unless it was by accident, as in the infamous Rumsfeld press conference.
And I don't know how his capture would mitigate losses in Iraq, when Zaqawari is clearly the main instigator there, not Osama.
The justification for the Iraq war was clearly WMD...which was bad intel...and not Osama. Now the justificiation for being there is to stabilize the country. And obviously, we are stabilizing it against terrorists.
Quote:
Originally posted by Techweenie
OBL has been a 'top priority' for over 1400 days, now.
It took less time to declare war on and ultimately defeat Japan in WWII.
|
Ah T-Weenie...you prove my point about Americans being impatient. However, you are also incorrect.
OBL has been a "top priority" since the early 90's, which is a lot longer than 1400 days: WTC1, Embassy Bombings, Cole Bombing....remember?
But the analogy is completely apples and oranges anyway. By the same logic I could say "Well, it is significantly less time than it took for France to defeat England in the 100 Year Wars". And I'd be right...but it is clearly not a significant measure of success.