It's pretty straightforward, actually. Saddam has all the motive necessary to ignite a regional, if not world, conflict, and to employ weapons of mass destruction. He has already demonstrated his unity with the cause of terror and his hatred of Jews and Americans.
The only thing he lacks is the weaponry, which he is actively persuing. Fight him now, when he doesn't have them, or wait to get hit, and fight him later. It comes down to this: let's fight the Axis in 1938, not 1941.
It's pretty straightforward, actually. Saddam has all the motive necessary to ignite a regional, if not world, conflict, and to employ weapons of mass destruction. He has already demonstrated his unity with the cause of terror and his hatred of Jews and Americans.
The only thing he lacks is the weaponry, which he is actively persuing. Fight him now, when he doesn't have them, or wait to get hit, and fight him later. It comes down to this: let's fight the Axis in 1938, not 1941.
Your argument isn't without merit. The question is, which country is really in danger--the U.S. or Israel? I frankly doesn't see that Saddam poses much of a threat to the United States. At least it has always seemed to me that China poses a much bigger one. Yet none of the commentators I was complaining about are ever demanding that we bomb China. Well, why not, if nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile power are such a threat?
Some would argue, "Well, Israel is an ally and therefore the U.S. has a duty to go to war on its behalf." That's an argument I can respect and one which should be openly debated. Right now though, the case for bombing Iraq is nearly always presented as a necessity for our own defense, and only incidentally for that of Israel. That's what bothers me--the notion that some of these commentators aren't telling the whole story.