RE: RE: Is the Iraqi War causing more acts of terrorism???

Steve opines:

I find myself in an odd position on this one.

There should be little doubt for any thinking person that Iraq was George Bush's little pre-fab war. If we were all that interested in striking at the heart of Islamo-fascism and terrorism, we should have invaded Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Heck, even Northern Ireland harbors more terrorists than Iraq did. Saddam Hussein made a mockery of Dubya's Pop. Then he added insult to injury and sent a hit-man after George 41. Bush 43 took that as a personal vendetta to be settled with heavy armament. All this is borne out by the conduct of the war in the last six months. Saddam is no longer in power, Dubya isn't interested in the war any more. We're not fighting a war over there, we're on a Boy Scout camping trip with munitions. Bush and Rove are just trying to maintain spin control long enough to hand it over to whoever happens to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in 2009.

All that being said, appeasement is a singularly silly approach. That is, unless you like being overrun, just as Europe is, by militant Muslims. This is exactly the same approach taken by three year olds when they cover their eyes and pretend no one can see them. These Arab nutjobs only understand extremism. Therefore, since they exploded seven bombs in London, we should detonate seven tactical nukes evenly spaced in population centers along the Syrian border with Iraq. Every time they blow up a bus, we level a city. If they take hostages and shoot innocent civilians, we bomb a residential neighborhood in Damascus. Every time they behead someone they've kidnapped, we publicly execute a dozen "insurgents" and bury them in pigskin. If we prove to them that we are utterly without mercy and will retaliate for their every action twelve-fold, the terrorism will stop in short order.