Replies

And once we conquer Sadaam and Iraq and then the next massive attack comes on America manned and funded by Saudis and our other "allies" will you be calling those who opposed the war against Iraq "peace freaks" or whatever. To oppose a war is not to oppose all wars.

Well, you pose a question with an hypothesis that I do not believe is so. A strong action in Iraq will prevent anyone else in that part of the world from making trouble for us. The incubation of terrorists for sport and to distract the common folk will become quite untenable. I think that part of the world is populated by a primitive sort of people who respond to force and power. Anything less encourages their manipulative gameplaying and comes across as weak. The Saudis will turn on their own despotic government, not us. And we are the most powerful nation on earth, we need to walk that walk in dealing with these arabs. I do think Saddam is the most dangerous person to us at this point. There are other tyrants not worth dealing with but Saddam is in an entire other league from say Mugabe. Saddam will kill one way or another even without provocation. He will kill for sport and to show he can. He needs to be dead and others of his ilk need to be dead. We need to do it or we will all see something far worse than 911.

Tell me how Scott Ritter knows what Iraq has? Is he willing to bet his money, reputation or even life on it? When was the last time Ritter was in Iraq that we know of? What is his assessment based on? Where is his proof? Why should he not be required to present the same level of proof that he and many others are demanding of the administration?