A Question

philosofy123

[philosofy123]

Out of the 19 Islamic terrorists that attacked America in 9/11, how many Iraqis?

Hint-----ZERO

Out of the thousands of Islamic militants arrested in the US and Europe, how many Iraqis?

Hint----ZERO

Where did the US discover there is a new El Quaida terrorist camp? Hint----Iran, not Iraq

Well, I am not the smartest man in the world, but the above facts should give me a hint on who should be my greatest enemy?

[philosofy123]

I hope you are correct! Please tell me I told you so, when this happens. In the mean time, I am not going to hold my breath. The Iranian oppression will live on like the rest of the Oppression throughout the Islamic world.

[patriot5186]

I would have hoped that our government would have been more specific in naming their enemies. The general "terrorists" could cover many different types which may not have any connection to 911. I believe the US should specifically target Islamists, that is people using the Islamic religion not as a personal religion but as a political idealogy in an effort to do away with the West.
That being said, it is also a fact that Saddam is a very dangerous man with WMD. clearly he has shown his aggressiveness and his ability to use these weapons even on his own people. I believe taking out a man like Saddam would make the world safer in the short term, but I'm not so sure it doesn't strengthen the Islamists regionally, such as those in surrounding countries like Iran.

[philetus]

If they told us that he has THE bomb and they know for a fact he plans to use it on the U.S., this country would go mad.

With the money at his disposal, if he wants THE bomb,and I'm sure he does, someone would sell him one.

[philosofy123]

Correction, when we started our war in 1991, there was a concern that he was going to keep all the westerners hostage. He did not, he let them all go home free. On the other hand, your beloved Iran, without us bombing them they invaded our embassy, and kept our people hostige for more than a year?

[philosofy123]

Right on, I would add, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Indonesia

[Oldeconomybuyer]

One of the regular guests on the nightly "talking head" programs (can't remember his name) often says that Iran is the home of modern terrorism - and I agree based on the reading I've done. The difference between the clear and present danger between Iran and Iraq seems to be more a case of which government will most likely self-destruct over the near term. In this case, Iran's islamic government seems to be ripe for hopefully a bloodless revolution with the result a more democrat form of regime (based on Arab standards).

Iraq on the other hand is different. Saddam has control of his government with little prospects for internal regime change. Also, the broken UN violations, the invasion of Kuwait, and his use of WMD's put Saddam in a special light internationally. Iran, Korea, Syria and other terror sponsors don't have the same "evil" recent past.

Ultimately, I believe the aim of US policy is to start with Afghanistan (direct 9/11 response) and follow it up with regime change in Iraq - all designed to show other world dictators that we say what we mean, and mean what we say ... you are either with us, or with the terrorists ... and we will respond to terrorists and the nations that harbor them.

This policy will be clear to radical Arab nations in the coming months, and clear to democrats in America sometime in 2015.

[shortstop]

"Well, I am not the smartest man in the world". And that's why Algore invented Spellcheck. I hope one comes with your next computer.

[philosofy123]

You must one of the croud that waits for TV to tell them what to think!

[philosofy123]

Ah, you're logical, rational, and specific. You'll get flamed, but that validates the three adjectives I used

Why do you think people are not asking these kinds of questions? Where are these septuagenarians of 60 minutes?

[My2Cents]

If Saddam has the bomb, and he may, if Bush were to divulge that information to the world, imagine the cry in Congress by the cowards who would say that we simply CANNOT go up against Iraq because of the fear the Saddam would use it. This type of intelligence would solidify the appeasers in the US media and in Congress.

[philosofy123]

You make a lot ofd sense!

[Peach]

Did you hear anything Colin Powell just said re Iraq - on tv live now. Listen - you might understand.

[philosofy123]

I think Iran is more trouble to the US and the world. Hence, I would use our resources to neutralize these fanatics. Our enemies are fanatic Moslems not followers of a dictator!

[AzJP]

1. They are asking, but they're accused of pacifism, isolationism, pro-terrorism, etc etc etc not to mention other name-calling here. They get shouted down.

2. Don't know, don't care.

[DWPittelli]

The question of who to attack now is a strategic one, not primarily a moral one. Certainly Syria and Iran are equally evil, and "regime change" -- or at least a tempering of terror and fundamentalism-funding -- would also be good in Saudi Arabia. But we're not going to attack all these countries, certainly not all at once.

(The fact that Syria's ruler is new, and can't really be blamed for the sins of his father, and that Iran may fall internally, and that we still have an important airbase and oil supply needs from Saudi also argue against starting with any of those countries.)

Further, given that we're already at war with Iraq, it's an obvious first choice. Once that's done, we're on the border of the other 3 countries, and will no longer be so dependent on Saudi bases or oil. And if Iraq goes well, the rest of the scumbag dictators in the region will lie low, and we may not need to overthrow any other thugocracies.

[philosofy123]

My gut feeling, you are correct. I would like to believe our President too. However, every time they breif Congress, the leaders come out and say, they did not learn anything new? Iran has not had a weapon inspector for more than twenty years? They even started a terror camp for El Quaeida, What gives?

[Cyber Liberty]

...croud...

I appreciate your making my point for me. Very efficient and labor-saving.

[Cold Heat]

To answer your question directly, I will as strongly and clearly as I am able, say the following!

1. The Iraqi people have never, ever been declared the enemy!

2. The enemy is the government of Saddam H.!

3. I would therefore state that the logical conclusion would be that it would be unlikely that Iraqi's would be found participating in terror!

Having said this I now pose a question to you.

What would be the logical result, based on prior actions by Saddam, (which I need not go into now), if he were to aquire even one single nuclear device? How would he use it? What would he do with this power?

I'll tell you.....................He would put it in one of his 80 or so medium range missles and aim it at Israel. He would them tell the world that if anyone screws with him anymore he will launch it!

This would be worse than anything the writers of the James Bond movies could think of. There would be little we could do to prevent the launch, or render the bomb safe. It would travel over the tops of our allies heads in the region on it's way to Israel!

Now, what do you think we should do about it?

[paul51]

Well, I am not the smartest man in the world

No argument here

[The Duke]

Great questions. You keep asking them. Iraq is a scapegoat for the lynch mob.

You're absolutely right! Nothing I've heard said in justification of this war wouldn't apply to Cuba or North Korea a hundred times over. The American people are being suckered in big time! (I never thought I'd find myself nodding in agreement with Al Gore, but I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

I really expected more from Rumsfield - I guess they're allow just lousy politicians, though. :(