And likewise, there's a difference between our response to Pearl Harbor and the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. The 9/11 attack was a bunch of Saudis, not the state of Iraq, so I'd say that's not even comparable. In other words, it's a red-herring comparison.
Wow! Simply stunning! What exactly would that difference be, Gondring?
The attack on Pearl Harbor was conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy, not Germany or Italy or North Africa so why did we attack them? Why did we not simply go to Japan, wipe them out and come home?
The 9/11 attack was a bunch of Saudis, not the state of Iraq, so I'd say that's not even comparable.
See above. I would say it is exactly the same.
BTW, that bunch of Saudis were not in SA, they were in Afghanistan operating under the Al Queda umbrella of a host of terrorist organizations with players scattered in several countries, Iraq being one of them.
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.""And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
-- President George W. Bush, 9/20/01"And you all also may remember that early on, I said if you hide a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you provide comfort to a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. The Taliban now knows what we mean. They're gone." -- President George W. Bush in Alaska on 2/16/02
[do a search of Abu Nidal+Iraq]In other words, it's a red-herring comparison.
Not at all. You may also want to do a search on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.