>> "we were attacked"... by Saudi Arabians trained and financed in Afghanistan by a rich Saudi. Logically, we should have attacked the Saudis, not Iraq. However, them Saudis may be dictators, but they be our dictators.
There is an element of truth in that, I'll agree.
However, it isn't the whole truth and could only be considered superficial. For example, bin Laden had substantial responsibility for 9/11, and while he was born a Saudi, he was effectively exiled from Saudi Arabia in the early 90s. So, while his family was a Saudi family it really isn't accurate to say bin Laden was a Saudi.
The important point, however, is that Iraq was never attacked for its complicity in 9/11, which was minimal. The fact that Iraq didn't participate in 9/11 does not, in any way even remotely suggest that removal of Saddam could not play a role in the solution to the problem.
By your reckoning, the only appropriate action would have been to attack Saudi Arabia which obviously was never on the table and shouldn't have been.
As so many do, you're oversimplifying in the extreme. You do it because YOU can understand that while don't have sufficient command of the facts to understand the bigger picture. |
