Replies

Completely agree with your post disputing the need for a democratic history, as well as the points made by finnman69 and You Dirty Rats. No need to repeat those.

I will offer one more point concerning the physical presence of a post-Saddam regime with a significant American military force in the heart of the Middle East bordering Iran and Saudi Arabia.

At best, this is an effective presence to influence other countries and protect pro-American regimes (following the model in Europe and Asia). At worst, this presents the Islamic authoritarian/militant/terrorists with fighting on two fronts (Isreal and Afghanistan/Iraq) and moving the threat to them closer to home with a greater ability to interdict operations against the homefront.

As a member of the armed forces, I would rather be an armed target in the Middle East for our enemies, than allowing those I am sworn to defend remain targets unopposed in the US.

At best, this is an effective presence to influence other countries and protect pro-American regimes (following the model in Europe and Asia). At worst, this presents the Islamic authoritarian/militant/terrorists with fighting on two fronts (Isreal and Afghanistan/Iraq) and moving the threat to them closer to home with a greater ability to interdict operations against the homefront.

This is an excellent strategic point. I just wonder what Israel is providing to the US for taking some of the heat off of them.

Yes, there is a good case to be made for going after Saddam. It's irrefutable.

I just don't know why we aren't making it, and are instead relying on things that are arbitrary & subjective at best.