[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not sure if you are advocating the position that invading Iraq was not appropriate or mocking another specious RATmedia criticism.

At any rate, attacking Iraq was absolutely necessary at that time as the reaction of the terrorists indicates. These desperate attacks are provoking the other states to show their hands more and more and this is not what they want to do now but would rather pretend that the "stateless" "religious" private operation of OBL is carrying on the Terror War.

There is no difference between the International Terrorists and Saddam's Iraq. Iraq has funded, trained, facilitated, protected, abetted, and provided sanctuary for terrorists of EVERY stripe. The list of rats welcomed to Baghdad included terrorists who bombed the WTC1, Palestinean killers, al Queda operatives in the hundreds, Mohammed Atta even received assistance and directions from Baghdad.

Iraq is far more powerful and a far greater threat than Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its actions over the last 20 yrs show just how great a threat it was to its neighbors, and its own people.

raq was #1 on the to-do list.

This is EXACTLY the reason the Abomination did every thing he could to avoid facing this problem.

[philosofy123]

"Iraq is far more powerful and a far greater threat than Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its actions over the last 20 yrs show just how great a threat it was to its neighbors and its own people"

If you think Iraq was a greater danger than Iran, and Saudi Arabia, you are either misinformed by Fox network, or rather blindly follow Bush.

in the past 20 years Iraq had a proxy war for us against the Ayatollah Khomeini. We gave Saddam lots of help to mess with the fanatic Moslems of Iran. We rewarded him by having full diplomatic relation AFTER he had poisoned radical Islamic insurgency. After he invaded Kuwait with the approval of our ambassador (Gillespie) we reduced his arm force to practically nothing, bombed him occasionally, and imposed a sanction that humiliated him in front of his public. He had no supporters, so he wanted to gain Moslem Arab support; accordingly, he had to play their tune of being against Israel, and to support Islamic Jihad. In other words Saddam, the bad dictator was not a foaming at the mouth Islamic fanatic type he acted like one toward the last year in power. He was brutal, but not as dangerous to the US as Khomeini, or the Saudis. The Saudis have been spending billions of dollars to promote their hate-filled cult called Wahhabism Islam. You need to read more, and change the channel once in a while from Fox to see the other side of the story. Or may be you are just comfortable with your side of the story at any price?

[wayoverontheright]

Iraq is far more powerful and a far greater threat than Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its actions over the last 20 yrs show just how great a threat it was to its neighbors, and its own people.

I agree, but possibly for different reasons.

Reason #1-motive. Saddam Hussein was summarily humiliated BY THE UNITED STATES before the world in 1991. Then left to fester about it. The attempt on Bush I's life is the best indication that he wished to retaliate.

Motive #2. The attempt to retaliate failed. To think that Saddam wouldn't attempt to do our country harm, and do so in a clandestine manner is an opinion one has a right to, but for the one sworn to our defense to make such a judgement would be foolish.

It is inarguable that Iran and Saudi pose a threat to us, but lacking the revenge motive, they are much more malleable without war, IMHO.