Replies

The Saudis invited us in - and that invitation, to my knowledge was never rescinded. And Kuwait's invited us in to protect them from Saddam - they leanred all too well how bad an apple he was.

The likes of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would attack neighbors or us for whatever reason they find convenient. I have to disagree strongly with the notion that we can just pull out of all of these conflicts and let other nations sort it out among themselves.

We tried that course in the 1930s. We sat back, and let the world try to deal with Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's land grabs through the mid-to-late 1930s.

Ultimately, we did not deal with the threats early, and so from 1939-1942 we had a situation that was VERY touchy - all because we didn't act sooner, when it would have been far less costly.

Dealing with a Saddam Hussein is like treating cancer - the earlier you deal with it, the better your chances of surviving intact, and the LESS time you need to recover from it.

Unfortunately, we misdiagnosed Saddam, and as a result, the wrong treatment was initially prescribed. Then, whit it was obvious we had misdiagnosed Saddam, we didn't stop, and so now, we face the unpleasant prospect of having to launch a pre-emptive strike or face whatever horrors he comes up with. I choose the preemptive strike.

The Saudis invited us in - and that invitation, to my knowledge was never rescinded. And Kuwait's invited us in to protect them from Saddam - they leanred all too well how bad an apple he was.

So, does the U.S. military oath of office now include Saudi Arabia and Kuwait alongside defending the Constitution? Are our armed forces really just mercs at the President's call? Is that what we want in our 'free republic'?

The likes of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would attack neighbors or us for whatever reason they find convenient. I have to disagree strongly with the notion that we can just pull out of all of these conflicts and let other nations sort it out among themselves.

Hussein is an undisputable tyrant and villian, but he doesn't threaten the U.S. His interest is in staying alive and staying in power, neither of which is furthered by attacking the U.S. What evidence do you have to bring me to your view of Osama Bin Laden? Why do you think he would attack the U.S. willy nilly?

What has getting in the middle of the Middle East conflicts earned us? What is the fruit that has been reaped from our thousands already dead and billions already spent?

We tried that course in the 1930s. We sat back, and let the world try to deal with Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's land grabs through the mid-to-late 1930s. Ultimately, we did not deal with the threats early, and so from 1939-1942 we had a situation that was VERY touchy - all because we didn't act sooner, when it would have been far less costly.

Touchy for Stalin's Soviet Union, perhaps, but the United States was not threatened. Please explain to me how you think it was.