**Thanks for the kind words. I hope to give you as honest as response as I can, given my base of knowledge. I do not know if the US DoD considers Islamic fundamentalism our prime enemy, but I recognize that they are examining and tracking these groups as breeding grounds for terrorists. They are undoubtedly also keeping an eye on Indonesia, which has experienced a number of violent radical religions uprisings, leading to bloodshed and destruction of innocents.
At present, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for all intents and purposes, in bed with us. Their leaders are cooperating in the tracking of terrorists, the sharing of intelligence, and with critical logistical support. We have a much better chance of utilizing diplomacy with these two countries to meet our ends than through an assault.
America and the United Nations have attempted, many times over the last decade, to bring Iraq to the table. It is Iraq's unwillingness to comply, through use of force against the planes patrolling the no-fly zone, to the ejection of inspectors and hampering of their efforts, to the pilfering of the "food for oil" program under the U.N., that has lead to the current situation. America has shown, perhaps very foolishly in the past, that it will embrace nations that make even the tiniest of gestures towards peace (shining examples are China, with its flagrant nuclear non-proliferation and dual use technology violations, and North Korea, in the 1994 Agreed Framework for building the nation's nuclear power capabilities that was diverted towards the production of nuclear weapons).
**In short, Iraq has made this uncomfortable bed, now they are finding the sheets all stinky.
Iraq is a secular state in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism and only showed any interest in furthering that cause after our sanctions were imposed.
**Correction, my friend - we did not impose sanctions, the United Nations imposed sanctions. They even eased them for humanitarian purposes; instead of receiving additional cooperation for Iraq, Iraq ejected the inspectors and gave the U.N. their middle finger.
Would it not be in our best interests to open normal trade and political relations with Iraq, even to the point of developing strategic alliance with it, so long as it remains a secular state?
**As attempts to bring about this approach in the past 10 or so years have proved fruitless, I doubt they would reap any benefits now.
You see, we burned our bridge with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. We were on his side in the 1980s, during the continuing series of Iran/Iraq wars, and used the "enemy of my enemy" approach then. The Ayatollah was holding our embassy staff hostage, did so for 444 days, and Saddam received assistance from us around that period. I honestly think he was surprised when we entered what would become "Desert Storm."
As to the fact Saddam is a dictator, we have and do support dictators around the world throughout the twentieth century.
**Agreed, and we have turned a blind eye to many who butchered their people by the thousands.
Many of these alliances have been very fruitfull. After all, if Stalin had not kept the majority of Hitler's ground troups busy, the invasion of Normandy could never have occurred. In short, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and no one can doubt that Iraq fought a long and arduous war against Iran for the very fact the latter country was fundamentalist.
**Agreed, as noted above.
I just don't see where this attack fits in with the war on terrorism.
**Some may consider this a leap of faith, but I do not. We already know, as has been documented by declassified reports provided by British intelligence and other agencies, that Saddam has thousands of tonnes of biological and chemical weapons, and that he had a considerable nuclear acquisition plan in place prior to the start of Desert Storm. We know this because documents uncovered by the inspectors revealed proof of manufacture or acquisition after the cease-fire. The proof was so conclusive, that the International Atomic Energy Association modified its safeguards and reporting measures in 1998 to address proper lack of oversight.
I personally believe, based on what I know and have read, that Saddam's greatest threat lies not in what he posssess, but who he is willing to sell it to.
The following countries are considered Tier IV, meaning that the United States is not allowed to sell them any technology which has a dual civilian/military application: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Syria. Despite this, two of these countries still purchase heavily from China, a Tier III country, (which the US allows some purchases up to a point). Now, watch the path of the materials: the United States sells to a country under strict guidelines, they, in turn, sell to a country we would never sell to under no guidelines, who, in turn, sells to whoever they want (on the open or black market).
That is the real threat IMHO, not nuclear war. Read quick...and let's talk with FR comes back up. I started out doubting Bush's abilities, then thinking he was great, but now thinking he is side-tracked. Straighten me out because I would love to support this war.
The only thing I found wanting in your reply was the clear link between the war on terrorism and radical fundamentalist Islam. In every case of terror about which I have read, both here and in Israel, the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. The schools that teach this form of Islam (I believe they are called Madrasses)are found mainly in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Hence, the 9/11 perpertrators came from Saudi Arabia. It is only our alliance with the leaders of these two countries that keep them in power. Without our support, both countries would quickly fall into forms of government similar to Iran. The same goes for Kuwait. After Iraq, at least the Saudi's, will quickly distance themselves from us and begin to take a much more fundamentalist position themselves, as they have become very frightened of their own people. In fact, Saudi Arabia may well become our next major problem.
Thanks again.