Now that another election is coming up and the Republicans are seeing how badly Bush is affecting their chances, they're starting to trash talk him.

Dang it, they're going put Steven Colbert out of a job!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900568.html

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

Bush's intellectual depth was well-matched to that of his opponent in the election.

Why'd it take him 6 years to figure out he is an idiot?

Oh, I don't dispute that politicians are backstabbing yes-men. I was just commenting on the substance.

Bush's intellectual depth was well-matched to that of his opponent in the election.

Come on. The man can't even talk in public without a script. There's a reason why they don't ever let him answer an unprepared question.

Come on. The man can't even talk in public without a script. There's a reason why they don't ever let him answer an unprepared question.Public speaking ability is not a function of intelligence.

Public speaking ability is not a function of intelligence.

It certainly demonstrates intelligence if you can do it. Tony Blair can sit down in a room full of journalists and personally answer questions on any topic they like for an hour. Even if you can't stand the guy, you can't say that he's stupid.

Not really. Al Gore is a good public speaker.

Come on. The man can't even talk in public without a script. There's a reason why they don't ever let him answer an unprepared question. He cant speak in public WITH a script.

No matter who gets in next, they'll F up the country because none of them are in it for the country. Certainly none of them are in it for the long term benefit of the country, just the short term get-reelected time period. We need a real leader and I don't see any among the bunch of yahoops we have up there now.

I'm not sure if they'll F it up any worse than it already is. Bush has already said that he's going to leave the Iraq mess for whoever the next administration is.

Yet they keep denying that this is another 'Nam.

He could screw up more. I think bombing or invading Iran would be icing on the cake.

Its not another 'nam, yet. Not even close.

The difference in casualties between the two wars are not even comparable.

I have my major issues with the war in Iraq, to be sure, but the equation of this war with 'nam (by liberals) or WWII (by conservatives) borders on absurdity.

He could screw up more. I think bombing or invading Iran would be icing on the cake.

Oh yes, far better to allow nuclear weapons in the hand of an admittedly genocidal maniac /eyeroll.

****ing pacifists

Isn't it shame the elected numskull has tied up US military resources in a non threat? We could have used massed troops in Afghanistan to keep the pressure up on Iran.

All Iraq has done is show us as impotent to the theocratic hate peddlers in Iran.

That's what happens when you wage war based on what would make your friends rich and to get revenge on a threat made against your daddy a decade prior.

You ignore real threats and waste resources, political and material, on pointless wars.

And you lose the trust of people that you're competent enough to do it.

You ignore real threats and waste resources, political and material, on pointless wars.Isn't it shame the elected numskull has tied up US military resources in a non threat?If he hadn't, then 5-10 years from now, when Iraq is enriching uranium, you'd be saying "look at that idiot, he should have ended Iraq's nuclear ability for good when it was easy to do so."

Everyone's always a star at hindsight, let's try a little <i>foresight</i>, shall we? The war has ensured that Iraq <i>remains</i> a non-threat, for a very long time.

Now that Iran has rebuffed (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/23/MNGJCKNHTP1.DTL) proposals to limit its nuclear ability, it's time to lay waste to them, too.

Eh? Iraq wasn't working on enriching uranium.

I guess if we wanted to be that preemptive we should probably just attack everyone now.

Sorry Canada.

Eh? Iraq wasn't working on enriching uranium.Reading comprehension is good:If he hadn't, then <b>5-10 years from now,</b> when Iraq is enriching uranium, you'd be saying "look at that idiot, he should have ended Iraq's nuclear ability for good when it was easy to do so."I guess if we wanted to be that preemptive we should probably just attack everyone now.North Korea would be the only target in a similar situation, and they are far less dangerous than Iran. I'm unaware of any other countries on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, run by maniacs who want to destroy the U.S.

Well, right now a lot of countries are non-threats. We'd better bomb them now!:physics: (But really, it does sort of fall into line with Neo-Con thinking)

If he hadn't, then 5-10 years from now, when Iraq is enriching uranium, you'd be saying "look at that idiot, he should have ended Iraq's nuclear ability for good when it was easy to do so."

So pitching our resources at country with no nuclear program and no significant conventional military was 'foresight' when the guy one door over has nuclear development, a significant conventional military, and the idealogical drive to use them against us? Brilliant.

I believe Bush would hire you for a general officer position.

Targeting Iraq over Iran is just mind boggling. The only thing close to an excuse is poor intel information and that excuse has been done to death.

Targeting Iraq over Iran is just mind boggling. The only thing close to an excuse is poor intel information and that excuse has been done to death.I didn't say it was the <i>ideal</i> target. But the war was from "pointless" and Iraq was certainly not a "non-threat".

I'm curious what threat potential you saw in prewar Iraq. I assume you have some good facts to go on.

Personally, I'd have reinforced Afghanistan, got serious about bringing them into the modern age, parked troops on Iran's boarder, and 'tested' missile defense systems in joint maneuvers with Afghan defense forces.

Hindsight may be 20/20 but that hardly applies when criticizing wishful thinking.

You can't attack countries because they might be a threat in ten years time if they have the same leader, if they pursue weapons development, if sanctions fail, if they can import uranium, if nobody decides to stop them five years down the road. It's ludicrous.

You can't attack countries because they might be a threat in ten years time if they have the same leader, if they pursue weapons development, if sanctions fail, if they can import uranium, if nobody decides to stop them five years down the road.Sure you can, especially when those countries are aggressive, declare war on their neighbors, have publicly called for the destruction of the U.S. and its allies, and are dictatorships.

We declared war on Afghanistan because they wouldn't turn over one guy. And we never got him anyway. Now there's a pointless war, for which we, ironically, had world support.

I'm curious what threat potential you saw in prewar Iraq.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Quote:
If he hadn't, then 5-10 years from now, when Iraq is enriching uranium, you'd be saying "look at that idiot, he should have ended Iraq's nuclear ability for good when it was easy to do so."


So pitching our resources at country with no nuclear program and no significant conventional military was 'foresight' when the guy one door over has nuclear development, a significant conventional military, and the idealogical drive to use them against us? Brilliant


If anyones a military expert feel free to correct me but Iraqs Army wasnt exactly "weak," it was simply dwarfed by the US's. Iran's army is most likely pretty Similiar (as they fought eachother without a total and indisputed victor)

I think people confuse the strength of the US military to "Destroy Armys" and the ability to root out insurgencies/peacekeep.

Morals or whatever aside, I have full faith that we could blow the crap out of Iran and North Korea's [military] and whoever else we want (without resorting to Nuclear warfare), its just the subsequent restructuring/rebuilding of country that would pose a (huge) problem.... hah

The US Military should NOT be used to 'peace keep'.

You can't attack countries because they might be a threat in ten years time if they have the same leader, if they pursue weapons development, if sanctions fail, if they can import uranium, if nobody decides to stop them five years down the road. It's ludicrous.

It is not ludicrous.

THAT is the best time to attack them.

What is ludicrous is that you want a matched and fair fight using nuclear weapons. This is not boxing, Marcus of Queensbury Rules crap. It is war.

It does not have to be a fair fight; which is always implied with this train of peacenik thought.

It is NOT supposed to be a duel with a matched set. That notion is ludicrous. Attacking your enemy when he is strong is ludicrous. You must attack your enemy when he is weak, not when he is strong, if your goal is to win.

I'm curious what threat potential you saw in prewar Iraq. I assume you have some good facts to go on.

Personally, I'd have reinforced Afghanistan, got serious about bringing them into the modern age, parked troops on Iran's boarder, and 'tested' missile defense systems in joint maneuvers with Afghan defense forces.

Hindsight may be 20/20 but that hardly applies when criticizing wishful thinking.

Afghanistan has no resources that we need really. I suppose if you need a shawl they are an important country.

The Isreali bombing of the Iraq nuclear enrichment facility back in the 80's told us that Saddam wanted and was developing nuclear weapons. And wanted and was working on them for a very very long time(not as long as NK of course).

Saddam kept the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for over 10 years. And NK has shown us what sanctions and just "leaving them be" produces. A despotic lunatic with a Bomb. NK is the most sanctioned country on the planet, and they built one(or 10).

If you want more despotic lunatics with Bombs, your plan is sound.

Bush is a lame duck.

I dunno why you guys even are wasting any effort on him.

I don't.



If Clinton remains a hawk, I will vote for her in 08.

I don't see anyone else out there, maybe McCain. I won't vote for him now.

It is NOT supposed to be a duel with a matched set. That notion is ludicrous. Attacking your enemy when he is strong is ludicrous. You must attack your enemy when he is weak, not when he is strong, if your goal is to win.

You attack them when you're their enemy, not when they're a nation of millions of people minding thier own business.

Did you actually read the Wiki article, Tuda? Or just the parts you liked?

Saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is playing stupid games with words. Sure they did, they even used them. 20 years ago, against their own citizens and against Iran. In fact, it looks like we actually helped them do it. But having "had" weapons of mass destruction having WMDs now is two different things. I hate it when people do that, they must think we're stupid.

The American people were told that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon and had weapons that could be used against us. All the justifications we were given were either wrong or out and out lies or a third option, wrong under pressure to be wrong.

In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[72]

While I certainly don't agree with anyone using chemical weapons in a region not my own, I wouldn't ever condone my country going to war virtually alone without a very strong ally presence. What sort of idiot would think that after finding out we were deceived that we'd want to continue in a war like that for years and years and spend a Billion frickin' dollars a week on it and waste our soldiers lives in a cause that was WRONG?

If he hadn't, then 5-10 years from now, when Iraq is enriching uranium, you'd be saying "look at that idiot, he should have ended Iraq's nuclear ability for good when it was easy to do so."

Everyone's always a star at hindsight, let's try a little <i>foresight</i>, shall we? The war has ensured that Iraq <i>remains</i> a non-threat, for a very long time.

Now that Iran has rebuffed (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/23/MNGJCKNHTP1.DTL) proposals to limit its nuclear ability, it's time to lay waste to them, too.

Iran's the tougher nut and should have come first.

If Iraq had started enriching in five years, so be it, then smite them.

If anyones a military expert feel free to correct me but Iraqs Army wasnt exactly "weak," it was simply dwarfed by the US's. Iran's army is most likely pretty Similiar (as they fought eachother without a total and indisputed victor)

It wasn't dwarfed by what forces we had in the region. In '91 (when the real combat war for this 12 year conflict occurred), it was basically a showcase of American technology over Soviet might. Iran's armed forces would fare no better.

I think people confuse the strength of the US military to "Destroy Armys" and the ability to root out insurgencies/peacekeep.

You, perhaps, underestimate it. There isn't an army on the planet that could mount a credible military threat against the US military at the moment. Our technological advances are already superior to any nation on the planet that we are not close allies with (Read Britain and Israel), our logistics are peerless, and our command and control is frighteningly mobile and far reaching. We also have a sizable force.

Further, within 10-15 years our biggest weakness, our reliance on petroleum militarily will be on the verge of being eradicated. Already the Air Force is starting to implement the systems necessary to use coal gassification fuel. We have enough coal to last us for a few centuries or so at least.

Fighting insurgency is more difficult but not impossible if you leave out political considerations and simply wage the war to crush the insurgants. Further, new techology is coming close to rending some of the advantages of modern guerilla warfare moot (Look up the TROPHY system Israel has recently developed. A pity it isn't in production. They are also not far from developing a similar system that can stop kinetic ballistic attacks versus just rocket attack).

Morals or whatever aside, I have full faith that we could blow the crap out of Iran and North Korea's [military] and whoever else we want (without resorting to Nuclear warfare), its just the subsequent restructuring/rebuilding of country that would pose a (huge) problem.... hah

The problem we've encountered in our various wars since WWII is we haven't crushed the enemy enough that they were happy to surrender and let us pay to rebuild them. If you decimate Iran's military, strangle their economy, level most of Tehran and other major cities over the course of a few years....

In the alternative, we don't even have to rebuild/restructure. Just go in, destroy their military and nuclear program and either kill or drive out the Ayatollah Khameni and the rest of the religious council. Oh and crucify their president as well. Literally.

There isn't an army on the planet that could mount a credible military threat against the US military at the moment.
It isn't armies that give us problems, it is insurgencies.

It isn't armies that give us problems, it is insurgencies.

It isn't insurgencies that give us problems its trying to deal with them in a politically correct manner.

Of course, as I mentioned, we don't need to occupy Iran to fulfill our goals there.

Frankly, I don't care if they ever become a secular democratic nation. Crush their military. Crush their oil production. Crush their nuclear program. Destroy their current leadership. Go home.

That'd give jihadists enough fury to last them another 100 years.

That'd give jihadists enough fury to last them another 100 years.

They're going to have that fury regardless.

Especially with Iran stirring them up and funding them.

You cannot suppress the jihad with appeasement. All it does is allow them to expand their dominance in weaker areas of the world. Crush them. Crush their funding. Crush their havens.

We must defeat our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their wimmin.

I have to agree with Aidon here. The jihadists don't need goading to drum up fury. They hate, it is their way. It is all they know.

If anyones a military expert feel free to correct me but Iraqs Army wasnt exactly "weak," it was simply dwarfed by the US's. Iran's army is most likely pretty Similiar (as they fought eachother without a total and indisputed victor)

Actually, as evidenced by the first gulf war, Iraq's army was weak, and weakened conisiderably in those months. They lost what little modern aircraft they had when their pilots rather defected to Iran than being shot out of the air. They lost a large number of tanks and other vehicles trying to flee Kuwait. In the years of the trade embargo Iraq had no means to buy any relevant number of replacements. In short, they had a lot of old fashioned tanks (soviet union surplus), an old fashioned infrastructure that was insufficient to begin with and ten years out of date by the second gulf war.

Iran's army already has defeated Iraq once (at horrendous cost of life) but is likely unable to mount any significant resistance to the US army should they decide to invade. However, as seen in Iraq, the problem is not defeating the military but in defeating the population. Believing that the average Iranian will cheer and welcome american soldiers is about as naive as the belief was that the Iraqi would bow in grattitude and throw rose petals on the streets before the american soldiers.

If nothing else these people are proud. Human civilisation started in their countries some 11000 years ago (7000 if you look to the oldest cities only). They are not going to be graceful about bowing to a superior invading army.


I think people confuse the strength of the US military to "Destroy Armys" and the ability to root out insurgencies/peacekeep.

There has been no army in history succesful at defeating a dedicated population waging a guerilla war. Not the roman army in spain, not the nazis in yugoslavia, not the americans in vietnam, not the british OR the russians in afghanistan and not the israelis in gaza. It is the nature of the battlefield where one side needs to control the entire area while the other only strikes at targets of opportunity but does not engage against superior forces.
Unless you are willing to execute the entire civilian (if it can be called that under the circumstances) the best an army can hope to is contain the violence. In the modern era the guerillas have even more non-violent weapons to 'win' their fights with (as seen in the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah where PR and media manipulation was as important as actual weapons).


Morals or whatever aside, I have full faith that we could blow the crap out of Iran and North Korea's [military] and whoever else we want (without resorting to Nuclear warfare), its just the subsequent restructuring/rebuilding of country that would pose a (huge) problem.... hah

Yes. Obviously leaving behind a couple of dozens of million people who have nothing to lose and resent you is not a smart idea.


Eri

I have to agree with Aidon here. The jihadists don't need goading to drum up fury. They hate, it is their way. It is all they know.

If "they" are a static group of people, your point might hold some validity. Obviously "they" aren't. "They" get recruits from somewhere that weren't part of "them" at some point. Getting those who are already fantatical to change their ways is relatively futile. Effort has to be put in to decrease recruitment in order to minimise the problem that "they" pose.

I know I know, pro-activeness is just soooo last year, but there you have it.

What is ludicrous is that you want a matched and fair fight using nuclear weapons. This is not boxing, Marcus of Queensbury Rules crap. It is war.


I suppose the next target of Bush is going to be France? I mean that country already has nuclear weapons and even an aircraft carrier, and it certainly has shown to be occasionally opposed to the USA? Is that enough potential threat in your opinion that it justifies turning their major cities and industrial capabilities into dust?

Or stretching the analogy even further, every american has the potential to drive while drunk, so I guess it is best to lock every single one of them in jail before they hurt or kill an innocent?

The point is that starting a war because of what a country might do is assinine.


Eri

The jihadists don't need goading to drum up fury. They hate, it is their way. It is all they know.

The jihadists drum up fury in my country. They don't hate the British just because they're British as they're also British themselves. They could have gone to the same school as me or could have sat next to me on a bus. It's not a matter of 'us' and 'them'.

Fyyr

The Isreali bombing of the Iraq nuclear enrichment facility back in the 80's told us that Saddam wanted and was developing nuclear weapons. And wanted and was working on them for a very very long time(not as long as NK of course).


That nuke program was crushed. What has this Iraq invasion netted us? All I see are troops that are better employed aimed at Iran. You remember them, the actual threat in the middle east?

If you want more despotic lunatics with Bombs, your plan is sound.


So saving troops for use on an proven and ambitious threat somehow equates to "a_random_other_country" developing nukes? We apparently don't prioritize the same way. Attacking Iraq with Iran in the wings is somewhat akin to invading Mexico if Canada attacked.

If anything we should have gone from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq.

If anything we should have gone from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq.How was Afghanistan even remotely dangerous? We attacked them because they refused to turn over one guy, not because they were developing nukes.

How was Afghanistan even remotely dangerous? We attacked them because they refused to turn over one guy, not because they were developing nukes.
LOL! You're kidding me right?

They were funding, hiding, helping OBL who, if you've forgotten, was responsible for the events of 9/11.

I'm sure if the Taliban had handed him over or not thwarted us in getting him, they'd probably still be in power.

Attacking Iraq with Iran in the wings is somewhat akin to invading Mexico if Canada attacked.
If both were enemies, I would attack Mexico first. They have oil that I could exploit. And it is warmer there. I would get to Canada sooner or later, I could exploit Moosehead and Seagrams then.

If anything we should have gone from Afghanistan to Iran to Iraq.
So then all we are discussing is the order.

Fair enough.

I would have done Afghanistan, Libya(Chad, because they train there), Iran, Iraq, Syria, in that order. I still have not figured out Pakistan, I might have wanted them right after Afghanistan to be honest, but then the rest of the list.

LOL! You're kidding me right?

They were funding, hiding, helping OBL who, if you've forgotten, was responsible for the events of 9/11.

I'm sure if the Taliban had handed him over or not thwarted us in getting him, they'd probably still be in power.
We were sold on that invasion there because the evil mens made their womens dress in burkas.

LOL! You're kidding me right?

They were funding, hiding, helping OBL who, if you've forgotten, was responsible for the events of 9/11.Ok, so as I said, they refused to turn over one guy. That doesn't make the Taliban the least bit dangerous, only rude. And we never got him anyway. So what was <i>that</i> war all about, anyway?

If we have world approval to wipe out any government that funds, hides, and/or helps terrorists, we can go ahead and nuke most of the middle east.

It isn't armies that give us problems, it is insurgencies.

That is not OUR problem, that is their problem.

Ok, so as I said, they refused to turn over one guy. That doesn't make the Taliban the least bit dangerous, only rude. And we never got him anyway. So what was that war all about, anyway?

Oh come on. You're trying to put forward arguments on middle eastern policy and you can't even work that one out?

We were sold on that invasion there because the evil mens made their womens dress in burkas.
:bonk:

You think George Bush or Dick Chaney gives a rats ass what they dress their women in?

If we have world approval to wipe out any government that funds, hides, and/or helps terrorists, we can go ahead and nuke most of the middle east.

The problem with that is all the radioactive gasoline.

But that is the ONLY problem that I see.

Oh come on. You're trying to put forward arguments on middle eastern policy and you can't even work that one out?I can't figure out why Afghanistan is justified but Iran not, no. Can you? [Edit: To clarify, I think Afghanistan is the <i>least</i> justified of the ones being discussed.]

To help this discussion along,,,they are BOTH justified.

I can't figure out why Afghanistan is justified but Iran not, no. Can you?

Just to spell it out for you, the Taliban government sponsored, trained, and initiated the 9/11 attack on the US with its partner, Al Qaeda. It then gave refuge to the perpetrators of the largest attack on the US since Pearl harbour. 9/11 was not the first Al Qaeda attack on US interests or military forces and was not going to be the last. If Afghanistan had not been invaded, there would have been a constant stream of specially trained terrorists coming out of that country even now and extreme muslim doctrine spread by the clergy.

Iran has not attacked the US or sent terrorists onto US soil. The government is not a sponsor of Al Qaeda. They are not providing refuge to known terrorists, Al Qaeda or not (maybe some Palestinians). There is no case for self defence at all in a US attack on Iran, even less so than there was for Iraq. Any attack by the US would be a pure invasion for ideological goals which is why the rest of world would not support you. China and Russia won't even let you put on sanctions.

You can remember 9/11, that horrible thing with planes and tall buildings, can't you?

There is no case for self defence at all in a US attack on Iran, even less so than there was for Iraq. Any attack by the US would be a pure invasion for ideological goals

America stopped using its Army for defense when we willing went to Iraq without being attacked. For some reason, loads of American's decided that the US could attack anyone they saw as a threat, versus being attacked.

edit: Let me clarify one thing.

You can remember 9/11, that horrible thing with planes and tall buildings, can't you?

We were attacked - but not by Iraq. And while most people remember NY when talking about 9/11, one of the most highly protected government buildings was attacked! I believe we had every right to defend ourselves against those responsible for that. Unfortunately, it was never Iraq.

There has been no army in history succesful at defeating a dedicated population waging a guerilla war. Not the roman army in spain, not the nazis in yugoslavia, not the americans in vietnam, not the british OR the russians in afghanistan and not the israelis in gaza. It is the nature of the battlefield where one side needs to control the entire area while the other only strikes at targets of opportunity but does not engage against superior forces.
Unless you are willing to execute the entire civilian (if it can be called that under the circumstances) the best an army can hope to is contain the violence. In the modern era the guerillas have even more non-violent weapons to 'win' their fights with (as seen in the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah where PR and media manipulation was as important as actual weapons).

People can be conquered. A dedicated population waging guerilla war have, indeed, been defeated. (I hardly call 600 years of Roman rule in Hispania failed. Most of the conflict was due to senatorial intrigue until the 2nd century BCE, where there was 30 years or so of heavy guerilla style warfare, and then another rebellion in the 1st century which was quelled by Caesar...it remained relatively calm for the next few centuries when the Goths came a'knockin. ). It requires a certain ruthlessness, however, plus the ability to isolate the populace from outside resources. It becomes more difficult in the modern era, where there is such concern for the well being of evil men and the massive shrinking of the world in the past half century.




Yes. Obviously leaving behind a couple of dozens of million people who have nothing to lose and resent you is not a smart idea.

They already resent us. The current Iranian government poses a greater threat than the ire of the Iranian population if we destroy their government and nuclear ambitions.

Attempts at diplomacy are a joke, Iran will continue to hold out the carrot of diplomatic solutions for yet more years until they have the nuclear weaponry they need, when will the world learn that appeasement of madmen never works?

Just to spell it out for you, the Taliban government sponsored, trained, and initiated the 9/11 attack on the US with its partner, Al Qaeda. It then gave refuge to the perpetrators of the largest attack on the US since Pearl harbour.The reason the bombs started flying is that they wouldn't turn over Osama bin Laden. Bush gave them an ultimatum and they said no. If they had said yes, there would have been no war. Perhaps this is an aspect of the war that foreign media failed to convey, but it was <i>the</i> selling point in the U.S.

The evidence that the Taliban personally planned out the 9/11 attack is about as about as convincing as the evidence that Iraq has WMDs. There's no hard evidence that Osama bin Laden even did it, he's just our best guess. He could have admitted it later on just for the notoriety.

As for training, funding, and giving refuge to terrorists: if that's the green light for war, we can attack most of the middle east right now. Iraq, for example, trained suicide bombers and paid off their families (something like $25K, I forget) if they successfully bombed civilians in the U.S.'s strongest ally in the region. Iran now claims to be building up an <i>army</i> of tens of thousands of suicide bombers to let loose on allies. Let the nukes fly.If Afghanistan had not been invaded, there would have been a constant stream of specially trained terrorists coming out of that country even now and extreme muslim doctrine spread by the clergy.And after Afghanistan, there's still a constant stream of specially trained terrorists and extreme muslim doctrine.There is no case for self defence at all in a US attack on Iran, even less so than there was for Iraq.Nukes. Big boom. On nearby allies. Bad.

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/08/24/sc060824.gif
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20060824/lta060825.gif