>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.
But, the type of support he gave to anti-Israel terror, which is regional in nature, had nothing to do with WMD, or being a "rising threat" to the U.S., which were the arguments fed to us. If Bush had told the American people that we were attacking Iraq because he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, do you think the country and Congress would have agreed? It's just not a strong enough argument to me to make me think the lives of 500+ of our soldiers is worth it.
>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.
They hadn't been attacking us in the U.S. since 9/11/01 anyway! Plus, they don't seem to be leaving the U.S. to go to Iraq, they're coming from neighboring states where they were anyway.
>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.
The Arabs have a pathological way of being able to delusionally hold a grudge for a long time instead of looking inward -- note their seething hatred towards Israel. The war in Iraq isn't going to change that, unless we hang around there for decades and pump them with hundreds of billions of dollars -- personally, I'd rather make sure everyone in the U.S. has health care.
>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.
They've done pretty darn well -- it was just two years ago that they were having five or six attacks a week, and the fence will go further to prevent attacks once it's finished and secured.
>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.
Oh, I agree with that -- I think stabilizing the Middle East is a good idea -- in fact, I read the 80-page neo-con "manifesto" from the mid-90s and liked what I'd read. I'm just very uncomfortable with the nature of our reconstruction and diplomatic efforts, as well as the fact that although there were some good reasons to go to war, they weren't the reasons that the administration gave us (until after the war).
-Z |
