Replies

Saddam is secularist, Mussolini wannabe. Bin Laden and his ilk hate him for this. The Bush adminstration has decided to launch this war primarily to "build democracy" (a complete pipe dream) in Iraq so as to create a counterweight to Saudi Arabia. A second goal is to eliminate Iraq as a "regional threat" (e.g. help Israel). All of the above goals have nothing to do with home defense.

Another foreign war will go down as yet another failure of internatioanl social engineering in the tradition of Gulf War I, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. The track record of such projects is terrible but, for the world policers, nothing seems to succeed like failure.

Conservatives showed such good sense when they opposed the Haiti and Kosovo interventionism. Now, they have become hopelessly utopian Wilsonians.

The events of 9/11 changed a lot of things in this world; it demonstrated that the US is not so isolated or safe that it can ignore petty little tyrants half a world away. It also showed that the threat from the growing islamonazis is real and must be dealt with, sooner or later. The longer we wait the more expensive its going to be, but war with these maniacs is inevitable.

Destabilizing the Middle East by destroying Saddam and Iraq will accomplish several things: it will send a message to other regimes in the region (like Syria, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia) that we can go anywhere in the world and totally remove from the face of the earth any government or group of people that plots to strike US interests at home or abroad.

Kosovo was indeed a worthless display of Nato's impotence, because we hit the wrong people there. But these terrorists do not operate in a vacuum; they are aided, abetted and financed by governments. It is these governments that we need to deal with, one way or the other. Its not difficult to figure out who they are. And time is the enemy.

"All of the above goals have nothing to do with home defense."

You have a very limited view of home defense. In a world were the techniques of terrorism have been developed to a very effective degree and where Weapons of Mass Destruction are becoming more and more available,simply putting guards on the borders is not going to do it.

In fact the only thing that will work is to go on the offensive. If we do not wipe out the hornet's nest, the hornets are going to inflict great pain on us.

Gulf War I was certainly NOT "internatioanl social engineering". It was a very limited and determined response to a country that had invaded and totally raped and pillaged another sovereign country. This could not be allowed to stand.

Saddam and bin laden are good buddies, my friend, do a search on some of my linked articles that show Saddam's support for OBL and Al Quaeda and other terrorists.

The pipe dream is the dream than we can defeat terrorism *without* taking out saddam first. it is one and the same.

"All of the above goals have nothing to do with home defense."

I think it would be a better statement had you said all of the above goals are not motivated purely from a home defense perspective.

That would be true. But to imply that removing Saddam Hussein doesnt affect home security in a positive way is brutaly ignorant if not simply knee-jerk contrarianism.

"Another foreign war will go down as yet another failure of internatioanl social engineering"

Then it seems to me that you have nothing to concern yourself with. If it is doomed to failure then sit back and let it flow...dominated a thread with your contrary opinion gives away your true thoughts.