Posted By:
Joe D.edit: thank you Jeff for that clarification. Yes - I most definitely am not talking about innocents. I am talking about the terrorists.
"THis is just about the most morally bankrupt statement made yet in this thread. Basically you are saying that there is nothing wrong with killing, death and destruction as long as it is those Arabs in the Middle East who suffer instead of us. WHat makes their lives less valuable than yours?"
cool - I broke a record 
'most morally bankrupt'
First let me say to the others in N54 land - that I very much like Jim B and consider him a friend - so none of our bicker (his words above or mine below) will sway that.
Jim,
It seems you rephrased my words - for your own extremes or tangents... and suggest they are something that came from my mouth. "Basically you are saying..." isn't this better phrased as "Are you suggesting...." "Would you then say....." As a question as opposed to an assumption of fact? I find it morally reprehensible when somebody rephrases something I say and claims it to be 'basically what I am saying'
What I am saying - if I should rephrase it differently myself....
with the benefit of hindsight - I believe agression worked out to be EXACTLY the right thing for our nation. We were attacked and more would have come. But.... like a bug-light on a dark porch, the al qaeda bugs are attracted to Iraq right now instead of heading to America to bite us in the behind.
We can sit back and look to defend ourselves... but in this case, the best defense is a good offense.
Personally - I am not saying any particular strategy within Iraq or Afghanistan was correct - but I think aggression was necessary.
That is the key point: aggression was necessary.