kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:It's a matter of numbers and resources - more people and countries, including the U.S,. are in direct immediate danger from Saddam at this time. If he can be stopped, it is ultimately a humanitarian "win" and may possibly make other despots around the world think twice
I'm not sure how that has been determined. Direct immediate danger? I don't think so. More like potentional future danger to those we've considered our allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) - not necessarily more people in danger, but more people who are important to us. kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>That was back when Iran was attacking U.S. citizens and avowing itself as an enemy of the U.S.. Not to say it wasn't completely boneheaded to have been so quick to support Saddam. I think the reasoning at the time was to let both of them focus on each other rather than other countries. I've seen this question and heard it answered that the U.S. was also an ally of Stalin in WWII but then that all changed very quickly after that war as we all know. Yes, I agree. My point is our humanitarian concerns shift according to what is perceived as in our best interest at the time. kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I'm still waiting for someone to explain how not trying to stop him will make us safer. If we don't do anything and are attacked in the U.S. with anthrax and smallpox and dirty nukes, which they probably already have in place here, then what do we say? What suggestions do you have to stop the threat? I don't mean that facetiously but it seems no one has any better ideas. I think the Bush administration has succeded in blurring the distinction between Al Qaeda and Saddam. I *wish* they focused as much attention on how they are planning to dismantle Al Qaeda in this country and in others as they do on taking out Saddam. Whether Bush is blamed either way doesn't concern me. Alternatives - I haven't seen any offered except for beginning inspections again. Some people believe these are foolish, others believe they are quite effective. Because someone is against unilateral action - an unprecedented first-strike attack -based on evidence that is either weak, or they are not able to share or confirm - it does not mean he/she wants nothing at all to be done. kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Yes, for years we've stopped a lot of terrorist groups in the mid-east from attacking us more than they would have if we had just let them go unchecked. However, a lot of our interventions and how they stopped us from harm will never be detailed on TV or universally disseminated. I know this for a fact, and I know that many people in the U.S. who have worked in the government or military also know this for a fact, but are constrained from giving out the details to the public. I'd like to give my own personal knowledge of such instances but I think classified security clearances are in effect forever.> Well, I can't comment on what I know nothing about, but these attacks that we've stopped - would they have even existed were it not for our involvement and presence in the Middle East? If we topple Saddam's regime and install an American administration of Iraq for a year (or more?) as has been most recently offered as a post-war plan by the adminstration, I can only see the number of terrorist attacks here and abroad go up. kakki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>With all this said, I would still like more details released to the public as to why Saddam is an imminent threat. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both gave interviews on TV back in September stating unequivocally that there is hard evidence linking Iraq and Saddam with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am surprised that more people did not notice this but a lot gets lost in the news coverage. I think they noticed it - it's that it didn't go any further than this. They seem to abandon that line of persuasion. I'd like to hear more about the direct evidence to help myself and others understand the threat better. Although, it's not much of a stretch for me for me to think they are involved with each other. I think we are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is hope that Saddam agrees with the UN resolution and agrees to the start complying again with the UN rules in his country. Amen to that - and thank goodness for Colin Powell who got us to this point. But we are preparing for war - and I fear it is has already been decided. Kakki, thanks very much for your knowledgeable and thoughful views on the matter. Jenny U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
