Originally Posted by Antithesis

1. How many terrorist incidents have occurred overseas? On the other hand, how many occurred between 1978 and 2001? Something as big as 9/11 only happens once every few decades and only results from serious lapses in security. If the U.S. government wanted to justify it's position, it would release information on how their actions have decreased the incidence of plots. They have not for one reason: there has been an increase in the number of plots
How many international terrorist incidents? Depends largely on how you define the term. However, there is NO QUESTION THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY MILITANT MUSLIMS.
- Also, why wasn't there increased security after the FIRST World Trade Center bombing? Oh yeah, that's right. Clinton was too busy getting blow-jobs and lying to cover it up.

2. The problem isn't accessibility to weapons. I never said that. I said that the easy access reflects a region where warfare is a part of life. And it is momentum. There must be a dozen cases of long-running feuds stemming from the theft of a goat in the Middle Ages. It's not the original incident, it's that people keep retaliating against each other, and it enters into a cycle of violence.
And there you have it - by your own admission.
The problem is primarily the MIDDLE EAST - where there has NEVER been peace.
Muhammad came along and built a religion based on bloodshed. His drones continue to live out his legacy.

3. Agreed. Politicians are the cause of that. Military commanders urged Bush not to invade. Military commanders urged him not to escalate. Military commanders told him the situation could not be solved the way he wanted to do it. They know the ground. They know how to conduct battles. They're trained to understand the necessary tactics in winning, and nobody listened to them. They have nothing to gain, because they're appointed, not elected by the American people.
And you're thinking Bush DID have something to gain by going into Iraq? You're thinking Bush went in to "vindicate his daddy" - as is the tired old liberal mantra? You're saying Bush is doing this for popularity's sake?
Good lord, you must be kidding!
The Professional Politicians are simply lining up on the side of popularity! Have you checked out the "stances" of politicians, like John Kerry, before and after the War began? It's a complete and total turn-around. Why? Because NOW it's not popular to be at war in Iraq. But when it looked like we were gonna march in, kick some ass, and come out heroes, John Kerry was all for it.
THAT is what I despise!