[PatrioticAmerican]

"
1. Support President Bush’s laudable just war against Islamicist terrorist groups

2. Oppose an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of Iraq to avoid unavoidable blowback and likely extremely adverse policy consequences to US national security
"

Am I nuts or do #1 and #2 conflict with each other?

[rightwing2]

Am I nuts or do #1 and #2 conflict with each other?

In my opinion, they do not. An invasion of Iraq seems to have very little to do with the war against terrorism since Iraq has no proven links to Al Queda or to any attempted or actual attacks carried out against the territory of the United States. Iran, on the other hand, is the prime sponsor of Islamicist state supported terrorism according to the US State Department. In fact, not only does Iraq have little or nothing to do with terrorism, according to the President in his Sept 12 speech to the UN, Saddam has killed one and one half million Muslims during his reign. Saddam's distrust for Islamicist terror groups is well known since they would threaten his power base. Saddam even assasinated the second most wanted anti-American terrorist, Abu Nidal earlier this year who had killed a couple hundred Americans--the very terrorist that the President accused Saddam of sheltering following his assasination. Perhaps we should be attacking Iran instead, not to mention North Korea with its nuclear missiles and threat to turn the US into "a sea of fire."

[JohnGalt]

No, they don't conflict.

Invading Iraq to stop hijakers and snipers already within the city walls, now that conflicts.