To: zonder who wrote (5396 ) 4/3/2003 11:58:00 PM From: Rollcast... Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987 No, giving money to families of suicide bombers does NOT mean he supports terrorists any more than the Saudis who collect charity & send money to the same families. It certainly is not reason enough to invade a country. It just may constitute "reason enough" now.... Do you think those governments may be considering this possibility now? As to your empty argument about the separation of saddam and binny laden... (at least you didn't devolve into the usual "maybe Al Quaida, but not 9/11" obfuscation.) Saddam's ties to terrorism have been clear for decades. The PLO, Abu Nidal's organization, Abu Abbas' org, loose ties to Ansar and Al Quaida, and even more clear ties to Abu Sayaf in the Phillipines.... Anyways, bottom line is/was that Saddam CLEARLY has found these sorts of groups useful in the past and, in the post 9/11 world and in consideration of the WMD's he has/had, Saddam could not be allowed the opportunity to use these groups again. That was the security reason. If we can do something pre-emptively to prevent another hit at home - we will pre-emptively act. Deal with it. There was a 2nd reason for this action. If the US can create a greenhouse democracy in Iraq, or even a government who is spending their oil wealth on their people and not palaces.... This will create real pressure on neighboring regimes to follow suit. That would constitute some shift in the dynamic in the ME which created the scum of 9/11. And, on the miniscule chance that it all fails and the region descends into chaos... consider it payback for 9/11. A message to the world. Hit us at home and we'll burn down your neighborhood. ps: busting up OPEC and the massive positive effects of low, stable oil prices for the next few years just happens to be a bonus... As you know by now - it wasn't all about oil... but it did have something to do with it. ;)