Zo Re...I'm more worried about fighting terror against our own country (which to be honest, isn't that much of a concern for me) than I am about fighting terror against Israel.
And if we say that we will only respond to terror, when terror attacks us, then how could we possibly ask for help when we are attacked. Part of the reason the west hasn't had a major attack since 9/11 is cooperation between the US and European intelligence agencies. Like, if you rub my back, I will rub yours. Terror is so widespread, one country won't be able to handle it alone. Finally, like it or not, Israel is an ally. Saddam attacked an ally, and we had a duty to defend our ally, just as we expect our allies to help defend us, when we are attacked.
Fighting countries that sponsor terrorism against us should be a higher priority for us than fighting countries that sponsor terrorism against a neighbor.
Terror is terror. Secondly, you can bet, defusing Iraq, will help control the 3 surrounding states, who with Iraq, and N Korea, were/are the major sponsors of terrorism in the world. Secondly, as you have seen in recent news accounts; Al Qaeda appears to be behind the suicide bomb attacks in Iraq. Which means Al Qaeda also diverted their attention, from the US to Iraq. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have AL Qaeda attack US soldiers in Iraq, who are prepared and able to defend themselves, than Al Qaeda attacking defenseless civilians here. Finally, Al Qaeda, and Islamic fanaticism is finished,once the Arabs realize they are the the ones being killed by the terrorists, and peace and prosperity are better options. There is a major fundamental rule, to always fight the enemy, if possible, on their ground, not yours.
Because Israel is a strong country which can fight its own battles. We have bigger fish to fry. There are so many groups that want to attack us -- Hamas and the PA (PLO), have traditionally refrained from doing so.
What makes you think Israel has successfully learned how to stop suicide attacks. There was a bus attack 2 days ago, and the checkpoint bombing 2 wks ago. While Israel could defeat SA, Syria's and Iraq's armies, Israel doesn't have the manpower to permanently occupy, all of them. The US doesn't either, for that matter.
No no no. Not it at all. If the Israelis were not capable of defending themselves, I'd find your argument more plausible. The argument about him attacking his own people (who were, for the most part, defenseless), though I don't regard putting down uprisings as "terrorism", holds a lot more water than about him attacking Israel by proxy.
You are seperating out the reasons, one by one, and then claim, that each reason by itself, did't deserve the response. However GW didn't have that luxury. They all came as a package, and like it or not, should be counted on their whole. And like it or not,geopolitics matter; the ME contains a valuable resource, without which millions of people in the west would starve, and our economies would be ruined. Any president who let the biggest three be controlled by our enemies, should and would be hung for stupidity and treason. You can't take that kind of chance with the lives of 289 million people. So, don't kid yourself,we have selfish reasons for wanting to stabilize the ME. Bigger reasons than the humanitarian reasons, and to say,we don't have an interest there, we should leave it up to Israel, is denying the obvious. |
