[rightwing2]

I guess where we have difference of opinion is in whether Iraq a sponsor of terrorism, and have they been involved in attacks against America and American interest. We are both stymied by the same lack of information. So, it comes down to an issue of trust. There are political, editorial, and intelligence people either we believe or we don't. There is no argument that I can put forward to change your mind if one doesn't believe or agree with the source that we use to base and form our opinions.

Yes, you make a good point here. The issue really comes down to whether you trust the government to do the right thing all of the time and believe everything they say or whether you think it prudent to scrutinize their policies against some objective standard based on conservative and pro-national security principles even if the government is led by members of your own party as here. As for myself, I prefer to measure all of our leaders against an objective standard and sometimes even the Bush Administration falls short on some specific issues when measured against that standard despite the fact that they have my continued support overall even if not on this particular issue. Saddam is an evil dictator who has killed his own people, but then again so have sixty other evil dictators currently in power the world over. Should we be bombing and invading them as well?

I say the US needs to move against the greatest threats to its national security which in this case are Communist China, North Korea and Iran, not Iraq, which remains firmly "in the box" since 1991. Step #1 would be for the Bush Administration to stop their continuation of Clinton's appeasement policies in regards to the PRC and DPRK. Next, we should suggest that North Korea and Iran are fair targets for US military action to put them off balance and deter them from further action against us. Then, we should inaugerate a strategy for how to eliminate the Islamicist regime in Iran and wipe out the DPRK nuclear missile capability in one overwhelming strike.

Freegards...RW2

[SLB]

What would the public reaction be to a preemptive strike against Norht Korea? Woudl the Koreans react across the DMZ? For the past umpteen years we have bombed the islamic countries (Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, etc) with relative ease. Would the Chinese react? How about the Russians?

[carton253]

Again... the difference of opinion is: Is Iraq firmly in its box? You say yes. I say no. I say that because I believe terrorists move in a concentric circle around 4 terrorist states... those states are: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. I believe that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Al-Qaeda are not independent agents, but they are the foot soldiers of these regimes. You can't look at each terrorist group as a solo act. They are joined to the states that sponsor them.

I have a hard time with the generality of "well what about China, or what about this..." These kind of arguments remind of me of children who are in trouble and instead of addressing that issue, they say, "well Mikey did... or Sarah did..."

That doesn't mean that I am letting China, North Korea, etc. off the hook, but the argument isn't about them. The argument is about Islamic militants. I believe that Iraq sponsors, forments, provides political cover for the terror we have watched during the last 12 years. Iraq is not in a box.

Saddam Hussein is being given the opportunity to stand-down and disarm and to stop the export of terror against Israel and the US. He is not. It is the same song and dance we have seen. He doesn't have to be invaded. He can stand down. So far, he is choosing not to. This country can't afford to allow him to continue.

Can Saddam destroy us as it stands. No! But, how many 9/11's are you willing to put up with why he remains in his box and continues to send Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas to do his bidding. For me, one was enough.

Iraq is the immediate threat... Saddam poses the most serious threat. Arguments about China, etc. are distractions against the task ahead.

I love questions that say "well, there are 60 dictators, should we invade them as well." As if, suddenly, those who want to bring down Saddam want to go out and invade everyone we see. That argument sucks... and it is brought up because it is very hard to defend. Now, I have to defend that and the issue isn't about 60 dicators, but the one who seems to have his hand in every major terror incident over the last 12 years... and before that too.

As for the rest of your last paragraph... I agree. Appeasement is weakness and it never gets you anywhere. But, do we fight all fronts at one time... or prioritize the threats.

We have different priorties. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the PA (don't forget that little rat nest of terror). But not all by invasion. If the news out of Iran is true, and Iran is teetering, then maybe we push. Syria will hardly stand on its own... but this is pure conjecture I realize, because the little Assad is crazy... Saudi Arabia... well, that will be worth a thread all by itself. But the Saudis must not be given a free pass. But since you and I aren't sitting in on the meeting between the President and the Prince, we have no idea what kind of pressure is being applied.

Mostly what we do on Free Republic is an exercise of what if's based on limited information. So, there is no one right or wrong here.