Replies

William III, what did staying out of the Iraq area for another decade gain for us after Gulf War I? Please elaborate.

On 09/11/01, we weren’t in the Middle-East. Did that cause the terrorists in that region to say to themselves, “You know what, the U. S. has not been invading our nations for the list decade. Let’s leave them alone.”

I keep hearing this vibe of Bush’s wars, and unwarranted wars, and non-necessary wars... Frankly, it’s laughable to me. We either face them there on their soil, or we face them here on our soil.

What is it that you think would have been the proper response after 09/11? Please tell me.

If you think I’m happy about our troops having go to foreign nations and fight, you’re wrong. I don’t like it. I never have. What are the options?

To my way of thinking we pretty much gave the folks who attacked the Cole a free pass. We gave those who bombed our embassies a free pass. How did that work out for us? Did the terrorists get their pound of flesh then leave us alone? No. They didn’t.

Right now we see new signs of trouble in Iraq. Some folks are pretty quick to say, “See, I told you so.” Okay, then what do we do?

Are we supposed to take a hit like 09/11 and just say, “Well, you know, some folks don’t like us. That’s the breaks. We’ll just allow them to attack us when they want, and we’ll be the bigger nation...” Is that it?

You’re not alone in your thoughts here. Others hold them too.

What’s your answer to these quandaries?

You addressed the weapons in Iran, and why Reagan didn’t go into Iran. The point I was addressing was Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Iran wasn’t close to that in Reagan’s day.