To: hchutch
I don't supposed the unprovoked sneak attack on 9/11/01 would have had anything to do with it. That might explain why the United States would engage in military action against a country like Afghanistan, but not against Iraq.
And even if Iraq were known to have been directly involved in 9/11, this idiotic talk about "spreading democracy" is the wrong way to go about it. In fact, by the time this is all over we are going to learn that the United States really has no interest in democratic Middle Eastern governments -- because we're going to decide that ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein are preferable to the kind of freely-elected leaders most of these nations are going to produce.
18 posted on
12/10/2003 6:39:42 AM PST by
Alberta's Child
(Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
To: Alberta's Child
Are you deliberately ignoring the detailed information indicating neary a decade of contacts between Osama bin Laden and Saddam's regime, or are you merely unaware of it?
I've read the articles. If half of the stuff in that memo was true, then Iraq was as much a sponsor of al-Qaeda as the Taliban regime was.
21 posted on
12/10/2003 6:42:48 AM PST by
hchutch
("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson