Post: #26

I'm very proud of what I did in Iraq under Supreme Commanding Warlord Bush.

Saddam Hussein and the rest of those terrorists? They aren't happy with me at all.

There's a glorious feeling you get when you walk into Subway and say "I din't fight in two wars to have just mayonnaise on my BMT"

Aloha!

Post: #27

(03-18-2019 06:24 PM)Kona Wrote:  I'm very proud of what I did in Iraq under Supreme Commanding Warlord Bush.

Saddam Hussein and the rest of those terrorists? They aren't happy with me at all.

There's a glorious feeling you get when you walk into Subway and say "I din't fight in two wars to have just mayonnaise on my BMT"

Aloha!

A subway franchise fee is 15k. For the 5.6 trillion cost of the Iraq war, we could have bought 370 million subway franchises, more than enough for man, woman, and child to operate their own personal subway out of their home, apartment, or childhood bedroom.

Think of how many BMTs you could get if every single person you met on the street was selling you one!

Post: #28

(03-18-2019 06:29 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:24 PM)Kona Wrote:  I'm very proud of what I did in Iraq under Supreme Commanding Warlord Bush.

Saddam Hussein and the rest of those terrorists? They aren't happy with me at all.

There's a glorious feeling you get when you walk into Subway and say "I din't fight in two wars to have just mayonnaise on my BMT"

Aloha!

A subway franchise fee is 15k. For the 5.6 trillion cost of the Iraq war, we could have bought 370 million subway franchises, more than enough for man, woman, and child to operate their own personal subway out of their home, apartment, or childhood bedroom.

Think of how many BMTs you could get if every single person you met on the street was selling you one!

I think Bush and Cheney would argue that $5.6 Trillion was cheap compared to the cost of single nuke set off in Washington DC.

No BMT or even meatball sandwhich would have been safe after that.

Post: #29

(03-18-2019 04:07 PM)BoiBoi Wrote:  So you do actually believe that the USA (or any major power) goes to war randomly? I hope that you are kidding.

Of course the USA didn't go to war randomly. The US went to war because a group of terrorists launched a covert act of war against the USA. President Bush decided, based on his information, that a response was needed.

Post: #30

What I'd like to know is why all of a sudden you felt the need to create a thread justifying a shitty war? You're in the company of people like Bill Kristol and maybe a handful of others who actually think it was a good idea.

This was was illegal, it sucked, and no good came out of it. Period.

Post: #31

(03-18-2019 07:12 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  I think Bush and Cheney would argue that $5.6 Trillion was cheap compared to the cost of single nuke set off in Washington DC.

Yeah, that was their argument!
It failed so horribly that the Bush Dynasty went from a national powerhouse to a laughingstock. Like, complete, utter, and total disgrace.

Post: #32

I don't know if Iraq was right or wrong.

But to the folks that say there were no wmd's (which may very well be true) have you ever considered maybe we blew them up right when shit started? The first part was "shock and awe" which ripped apart every possible target in the whole country.

I know everyone went into it thinking there was mustard gas all over the place, but nothing was there.

Who knows?

Aloha!

Post: #33

(03-18-2019 07:26 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 07:12 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  I think Bush and Cheney would argue that $5.6 Trillion was cheap compared to the cost of single nuke set off in Washington DC.

the Bush Dynasty went from a national powerhouse to a laughingstock. Like, complete, utter, and total disgrace.

Yes, as I said in the original post.

We agreed on something!

You have to remember that the same press that is concocting bullshit narratives about Trump was pulling the same shit back then about Bush. Almost everything that people think they know about Bush/Cheney is a press fabrication. A lot of the negative reactions to Bush I see here look like Bush Derangement Syndrome.

When Bush got re-elected, I happened to be traveling through the London airport on my way back from a business trip. There were groups of US travelers, mostly liberals, clustered around the monitors seeing the news that Bush had been re-elected. They were crying and rocking around. They had really been so completely sure that Kerry was going to crush Bush. It was strange and funny to me. I figured that, because of the 9/11 attacks, there was no way on the planet that Kerry could win. American voters don't switch presidents in times of war. But these liberals were so sure he would be replaced. There were the usual fake polls showing him losing.

That was when we all first realized that the US press had become completely overrun and was no longer even pretending to be unbiased.

Post: #34

(03-18-2019 07:12 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  5.6 trillion cost of the Iraq war

$5.6 Trillion

This is why Yang is trending, we've already wasted trillions on stupid shit that could have been used to feed our own people.

Post: #35

(((MrLemon)))?

Post: #36

(03-18-2019 08:24 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  This is why Yang is trending, we've already wasted trillions on stupid shit that could have been used to feed our own people.

"No money for the poor in our country! Infinite money for bombs to kill the poor in other countries!" is gonna be a harder sell than a lot of people think.

Post: #37

(03-18-2019 07:46 PM)Kona Wrote:  I don't know if Iraq was right or wrong.

But to the folks that say there were no wmd's (which may very well be true) have you ever considered maybe we blew them up right when shit started? The first part was "shock and awe" which ripped apart every possible target in the whole country.

I know everyone went into it thinking there was mustard gas all over the place, but nothing was there.

Who knows?

Aloha!

Hypothetical and rhetorical questions are not logical bases upon which to build conclusions.

Post: #38

(03-18-2019 09:00 PM)RIslander Wrote:  (((MrLemon)))?

<<<RIslander>>>?

Post: #39

I've gotta say, though, Lemon, this is the most damning epitaph to the Iraq war imaginable.
16 years after the war began, and it's defender isn't saying that the Iraq war was a success, or that the war was necessary, or even that there was a GOOD reason for it, just that the reason was "logical".

Talk about a humiliating conclusion.

Post: #40

Bush established the precedent that America can't be trusted. They intentionally fabricated a false narrative in order to take out a former ally because he was getting to big. When a superpower lies there are consequences. So North Korea can never get up its nuclear weapons and trade real protection for cheap words. Bush also aggravated the situation by announcing his enemies list, the axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. I remember when the war started, the fake news media supported it 100% and even made comments on what a beautiful display the bombs made. The fake news media was totally uncritical. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Post: #41

(03-18-2019 07:22 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  What I'd like to know is why all of a sudden you felt the need to create a thread justifying a shitty war? You're in the company of people like Bill Kristol and maybe a handful of others who actually think it was a good idea.

This was was illegal, it sucked, and no good came out of it. Period.

I gather you missed my post on the first page, where -- in addition to geo-strategic logic and the transformative potential, ie, if "Bush War" in Iraq, then no Arab Spring (ie, Constitutional Monarchy in Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq or Egypt) - I argue:

Quote:Third, there is the "The Bomb In My Garden" problem (SEE the book a memoir by Saddam's authorized nuke engineer who neither the UN nor US authorities knew about (Johnny Depp is reported to be producing the film of the true book.) People entirely neglect this inconvenient truth.

Actually, it was only a prototype for a centrifuge for separating enriched uranium to make a nuke device, just as Iran and the Norks operate.

Finally, the war in Iraq did the world this great favor: it kicked the can of nuclear device proliferation down the road fifteen to twenty years into the future - about where the Norks revealed they had such a weapon.

Furthermore, it revealed that the primary path for this future ran through Pakistan and "The Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World's Most Dangerous Secrets... and How We Could Have Stopped Him" (SEE the book, 2007) for who built nukes for the Pakis, A. Q. Khan.

This taught authorities to keep a close watch on Khan and those he sold technical secrets to.

And as a postscript, given the 9/11 attack, if you were newly president, what would
you have done differently? I never get a serious answer. [During] the 00s, I got "President Gore would have done the same things (as Bush did)!"

So consistently blaming Bush for the Iraq war is bogus. What were the serious alternatives, given what we learned after the war? That would have secured the US and the world against gathering threats like nuke devices gained by threatening actors against us and the world?

SOURCE /thread-72667...pid1953962

These days Iraq is looking rather MORE successful than Obama's "good war" in Afghanistan - a "nation" crying out for international partitioning and isolating.

The Muslim world is a mess and the Abab Muslim region only more so. If they had any brains, they would have emulated Israel many decades ago. Instead, Christians are facing their worst genocide in history and talented Jews have disappeared from Arabic nations en mass.

The War in Iraq - however horribly managed was the occupation and premature withdrawal - gave the masses no reason to complain again that the West was denying them democracy (which is admired as part of the West's secrets of success), which are among the many hysterical tropes gripping the region).

Post: #42

(03-18-2019 11:35 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I've gotta say, though, Lemon, this is the most damning epitaph to the Iraq war imaginable.
16 years after the war began, and it's defender isn't saying that the Iraq war was a success, or that the war was necessary, or even that there was a GOOD reason for it, just that the reason was "logical".

Talk about a humiliating conclusion.

Well, you've done an excellent job of misrepresenting what i said. But that's to be expected. When discussing gray areas and moral complexity, one can't expect much.

Post: #43

Symbolic invasions?

Im for Trump in part because I was against the Iraq invasion and was against the Syria effective-invasion.

The war in Iraq may have had symbolic value for the West but it had nothing to do with destroying Al-Qaeda. Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. yet in the one of the first security meetings after 9/11 Bush kept insisting that Saddam was the biggest threat to the US at the time.

We had all kinds of fallout in the UK because the British MI6 lied and lied again with fictions about WMD to help the US craft the invasion narrative.
Just as MI6 crafted the Steele dossier and GCHQ spied on Trump for the permanent Party-of-War Bushes-Jeb-and-George-and Dubya, Clintons, CNN, John-Major, Bill-Kristol, Rumsfeld, McCain.

Yes, the Neo-cons war gave them leverage to pressure Syria and Libya but then... look what happened to Syria and Libya after that. Hotbeds of CIA aided Sunni Jihadists thanks to Bush, Obama, Hilary fuckery. All part of the 'vision'.

Fuck Bush and fuck Jeb Bush and fuck Hilary and fuck the Carlyle group. They're all up to the same thing and the fact that Trump saw their treachery is the reason that he has been assailed by the non stop worldwide lies and MSM outrage.

People like Tucker Carlson admit that they were wrong on the Iraq War.

people like Ben Shapiro say that == whilst they were gung-ho on the invasion and democracy!!!! they now are.. (coy little smile, flutter eyelashes) much less... confident... about the outcomes.

Well.. they can get fucked as well.

Post: #44

(03-19-2019 01:25 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  Symbolic invasions?

[SNIP!]

The war in Iraq may have had symbolic value for the West but it had nothing to do with destroying Al-Qaeda. Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. yet in the one of the first security meetings after 9/11 Bush kept insisting that Saddam was the biggest threat to the US at the time.

We had all kinds of fallout in the UK because the British MI6 lied and lied again with fictions about WMD to help the US craft the invasion narrative.

[SNIP!]

To begin with, consider "We had all kinds of fallout in the UK because the British MI6 lied and lied again with fictions about WMD" - but EVERY national intel agency believed Saddam did!

Even a buddy of mine whose Dad was a UN and then US nuke inspector in Iraq "to this day" believes Saddam did (he's retired now).

But in a historically unprecedented manner, only Saddam and certain family members knew there were none. The rest - even among Iraq's generals - believed Saddam had extensive WMD.

Belief is one thing; after 9/11, it all came down to what you could and couldn't prove. And the proof was in the fact that Saddam had this material before and didn't fully account for it as required by UN resolutions. Suspicions and his flagrant flouting of compliance implied his guilt and intent to keep it.

Now, consider your first point, "The war in Iraq may have had symbolic value for the West but it had nothing to do with destroying Al-Qaeda. Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda." Let's think backward.

With A. Q. Khan as nuke proliferation's linchpin, with enough money, Al Qaida could make its own WMD. And more recently, so could ISIS. Or else money could buy a work-around (eg, through Iran or the Norks) to get it.

Both terror groups have stated that they would use it against Infidel nations. (Cf, "The Al Qaida Reader" for textual confirmation for Al Qaida.)

Furthermore, when the US-led invasion of Afghanistan occurred, we heard that Al Qaida wanted to reverse engineer smallpox and to unleash that historic menace against the Infidel. (This too is documented in "The Al Qaida Reader.")

I did a course on the history of biotechnology at Harvard in 2005. The expectation then was that by about now, the Trump presidency, reverse genetic engineering the crucial bits of DNA to make smallpox would become possible.

And indeed CRISPR-Cas9 fast gene editing is now available and free to do so. Thus, on taking office, a group of biotech scientists and other emergent threat security experts prevailed on Trump to beef up the monitoring of this current new threat. The urban are and oil resources of ISIS no doubt played an important roll in Trump backing US-led efforts to take down ISIS.

I'm not happy about this. But Jihad is what the Muhammedan's live for.

Post: #45

A logical reason for wiping out stable secular Iraq?



'Excuse me sir, do you have a moment to talk about our lord and blood god Khorne?'

Post: #46

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  When Bush and Cheney decided to kick the crap out of Iraq, they had almost no support in Congress or the world. But they did it anyway.

Why?

Some people think it was a stupid move, but like many at the time, I never thought it was stupid. Harsh, yes, but in the eyes of many, necessary to the future of the world.

The middle eastern countries had attacked the US on 9/11.

You're really blaming all Middle Eastern countries for 9/11, even though it was committed by 19 individuals, none of whom were from Iraq?

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  They used terrorism and thus, could disclaim personal responsiblity. Bush and Cheney knew they had to nip this in the bud. The entire basis of world peace is this: if your country attacks a big nation, you will be obliterated. But using terrorists, the Iraq/Iran/Saudis had undercut that system.

Why do you mention Iran? It's a Shi'ite country, they obviously hate al-Qaida, the Sunni group responsible for 9/11.

It's fitting that you mention Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of the 19 hijackers (as well as the founder of al-Qaida) originated. And yet Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, and certainly no threats of invasion or even sanctions. It has also continuously been permitted to fund Salafism, the common doctrine of most/all Sunni terrorist groups, throughout the world.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  If that trend were allowed to continue, the next step would be, you would have nukes set off in Wash DC. That would destroy world peace utterly. It was a very dangerous situation and Bush, as president, had to stop it by any means necessary. That was his job.

It's hard to say what the likelihood of nukes being 'set off in Wash DC' was/is, or whether that likelihood has increased or decreased since then or as a result of the Iraq War. Too many unknown variables. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that such an attack was imminent, however.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  So he randomly picked a middle-eastern nation. Yawn. Well, why not Iraq? Good choice. Evil dictator, had already pissed on America's leg, had a seemingly huge army. Great choice.

It was a terrible choice. Iraq was a secular dictatorship which kept a lid on religious fanaticism, much like Assad in Syria and Mubarak in Egypt. There were obvious sectarian tensions arising from the fact that the Sunni minority had violently crushed any dissent from the Shi'ite Arabs and Kurds who made up the majority of the population. What could possibly go wrong if an outside power were to remove that minority from power, leaving them to the mercy of a hitherto oppressed majority with deeply held historical grievances? (Rwanda should have provided an instructive example)

The likely prospect of unleashing a civil war should have been pretty obvious. And civil war in a Muslim country provides an excellent opportunity for terrorist groups to proliferate (as Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia had already shown, and as Iraq, Syria, and Libya would subsequently demonstrate yet again).

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  So Bush stomped Iraq, as a man might stomp a bug. He did so without anybody's approval. He didn't ask or care if Iraq was the main aggressor. He was conveying a message, that if terrorism was used, anybody with even a partial connection to the terrorists could and would be destroyed.

It seems Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, countries that actually support terrorism, never received that message.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  All the nations of the world were reminded: "oh fuck, the US military can stomp us casually, any time, with or without UN approval."

It was the perfect demonstration. It conveyed the message that the POTUS wanted to convey.

After his term of office, Bush essentially went into political exile, knowing that his choice would forever darken his reputation, but he is regularly visited by American citizens, who thank him for doing what needed to be done.

Of course there are many evils that have come from this choice. There are many evils that come from any situation like this. But the choice still has to be made.

It was unequivocally the wrong choice to make.

Post: #47

Quote:All the nations of the world were reminded: "oh fuck, the US military can stomp us casually, any time, with or without UN approval."

Pardon me dropping the civility I usually try to maintain towards other posters, but that is the single stupidest post I've ever read on this forum.


It didn't "send the message that the US military can stomp" anyone casually. It sent the message that the US military is utterly incapable of fighting any kind of non-linear warfare and that even third world goat-fuckers can defeat the US by simply going to ground and waging a guerrilla campaign.

Post: #48

(03-19-2019 08:38 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  When Bush and Cheney decided to kick the crap out of Iraq, they had almost no support in Congress or the world. But they did it anyway.

Why?

Some people think it was a stupid move, but like many at the time, I never thought it was stupid. Harsh, yes, but in the eyes of many, necessary to the future of the world.

The middle eastern countries had attacked the US on 9/11.

You're really blaming all Middle Eastern countries for 9/11, even though it was committed by 19 individuals, none of whom were from Iraq?

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  They used terrorism and thus, could disclaim personal responsiblity. Bush and Cheney knew they had to nip this in the bud. The entire basis of world peace is this: if your country attacks a big nation, you will be obliterated. But using terrorists, the Iraq/Iran/Saudis had undercut that system.

Why do you mention Iran? It's a Shi'ite country, they obviously hate al-Qaida, the Sunni group responsible for 9/11.

It's fitting that you mention Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of the 19 hijackers (as well as the founder of al-Qaida) originated. And yet Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, and certainly no threats of invasion or even sanctions. It has also continuously been permitted to fund Salafism, the common doctrine of most/all Sunni terrorist groups, throughout the world.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  If that trend were allowed to continue, the next step would be, you would have nukes set off in Wash DC. That would destroy world peace utterly. It was a very dangerous situation and Bush, as president, had to stop it by any means necessary. That was his job.

It's hard to say what the likelihood of nukes being 'set off in Wash DC' was/is, or whether that likelihood has increased or decreased since then or as a result of the Iraq War. Too many unknown variables. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that such an attack was imminent, however.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  So he randomly picked a middle-eastern nation. Yawn. Well, why not Iraq? Good choice. Evil dictator, had already pissed on America's leg, had a seemingly huge army. Great choice.

It was a terrible choice. Iraq was a secular dictatorship which kept a lid on religious fanaticism, much like Assad in Syria and Mubarak in Egypt. There were obvious sectarian tensions arising from the fact that the Sunni minority had violently crushed any dissent from the Shi'ite Arabs and Kurds who made up the majority of the population. What could possibly go wrong if an outside power were to remove that minority from power, leaving them to the mercy of a hitherto oppressed majority with deeply held historical grievances? (Rwanda should have provided an instructive example)

The likely prospect of unleashing a civil war should have been pretty obvious. And civil war in a Muslim country provides an excellent opportunity for terrorist groups to proliferate (as Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia had already shown, and as Iraq, Syria, and Libya would subsequently demonstrate yet again).

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  So Bush stomped Iraq, as a man might stomp a bug. He did so without anybody's approval. He didn't ask or care if Iraq was the main aggressor. He was conveying a message, that if terrorism was used, anybody with even a partial connection to the terrorists could and would be destroyed.

It seems Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, countries that actually support terrorism, never received that message.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  All the nations of the world were reminded: "oh fuck, the US military can stomp us casually, any time, with or without UN approval."

It was the perfect demonstration. It conveyed the message that the POTUS wanted to convey.

After his term of office, Bush essentially went into political exile, knowing that his choice would forever darken his reputation, but he is regularly visited by American citizens, who thank him for doing what needed to be done.

Of course there are many evils that have come from this choice. There are many evils that come from any situation like this. But the choice still has to be made.

It was unequivocally the wrong choice to make.

This is a good critique. However, you left out the necessary finish to your post. You didn't tell me what the "right" choice was to make.

I'd argue that every objection your making could be applied against WW2 and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Sure, wars are bad. Wars destroy. Wars cause civil wars and unrest.

Nevertheless, we have wars in this world.

Terrorists attacked the USA in a way that at the time was seen as a serious destabilization of world peace. Bush had to act firmly. That is not debatable. You can't just sit by and allow an act of war without counter-attack. He had to establish some sort of military response or "doctrine" in response...that's his historic job as President.

So if not attacking Iraq, what equally strong measure do you propose that Bush should have done instead?

If you say "nothing" then your argument is void. There is no option for "no action". Presidents don't get to sit on their ass. They react. That's what the system forces them to do. The only question is, HOW do they react.

Post: #49

(03-19-2019 01:25 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  Symbolic invasions?

Im for Trump in part because I was against the Iraq invasion and was against the Syria effective-invasion.

The war in Iraq may have had symbolic value for the West but it had nothing to do with destroying Al-Qaeda. Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. yet in the one of the first security meetings after 9/11 Bush kept insisting that Saddam was the biggest threat to the US at the time.

We had all kinds of fallout in the UK because the British MI6 lied and lied again with fictions about WMD to help the US craft the invasion narrative.
Just as MI6 crafted the Steele dossier and GCHQ spied on Trump for the permanent Party-of-War Bushes-Jeb-and-George-and Dubya, Clintons, CNN, John-Major, Bill-Kristol, Rumsfeld, McCain.

Yes, the Neo-cons war gave them leverage to pressure Syria and Libya but then... look what happened to Syria and Libya after that. Hotbeds of CIA aided Sunni Jihadists thanks to Bush, Obama, Hilary fuckery. All part of the 'vision'.

Fuck Bush and fuck Jeb Bush and fuck Hilary and fuck the Carlyle group. They're all up to the same thing and the fact that Trump saw their treachery is the reason that he has been assailed by the non stop worldwide lies and MSM outrage.

People like Tucker Carlson admit that they were wrong on the Iraq War.

people like Ben Shapiro say that == whilst they were gung-ho on the invasion and democracy!!!! they now are.. (coy little smile, flutter eyelashes) much less... confident... about the outcomes.

Well.. they can get fucked as well.

If Trump was President during 9/11, it's almost a certainty that he would have counter-attacked Iraq or Iran as well. So maybe you should not support him.

Remember, the 9/11 attacks were acts of war, in which an enemy attempted to destroy the American government (by destroying the White House and the Pentagon) and DID destroy a good chunk of lower Manhattan -- the financial hub of the world. The Trade Center bombings released the equivalent energy, and the equivalent destruction, of a tactical nuclear weapon.

This was an attempt to decapitate the USA.

What exactly do you people think the USA should have done in response to this act of war? Nothing? Go hand out flowers to the middle eastern terrorists and kiss them? LOL.

Post: #50

When 9/11 happened, I was sure that a President Gore would have done the ritual cliche speech about "thoughts and prayers."
Then maybe hold a high profile civilian trial for somebody. At most, bomb some tents in the desert in the middle of nowhere, and restart the federal raids on the Michigan militia and other white rednecks who go to gun stores.

That's what Bill Clinton's responses to attacks on America were.

Of course, now it's obvious that influential neocons and their financiers wanted war with Iraq no matter what. They wanted all of the secular dictators gone in all of the Islamic countries so that their country could operate more freely in the chaos. (And also they wanted promote a more approved version of Islam that blamed the West, not neo Palestinians, for Middle Eastern disjunction. To end 30 years of terrorism against Israel, they would strengthen Islamists who instead wanted to bomb Europe and the USA).

George Bush really ought to be commended for the idea of holding nations responsible for bad actors. State funded terrorism against the US would be worse now if GW wasn't so unpredictable and violent.