Drjones, you forgot...
This is a transcript of an Iraqi defector that was also a captain at Salman Pak a secret terrorist training camp in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Perhaps hearing from one of the horses mouths will help.
"Somebody made the analogy of Iraq as a guy with a gun pointed at our head. Let me take this further. Suppose there are three bad guys, one who has shot and irjured us (Al Quada), one with a cocked and loaded gun pointed right at our face (N. Korea) and one guy who doesn't have a gun yet but when he does get around to getting one, we are pretty sure he is going to use it on us (Iraq). Which one of these three guys should we go after? We are going after the guy that shot us so that is being taken care of, so who is next? Hmmm? I wonder. Lets go get the guy who is the smallest threat. That makes perfect sense to me. I am joking of course but I that is the logic we are useing."
Your basing your arguement on an assumption with no fact attached. Most of the counterpoints on this thread have cited evidence after evidence and fact after fact. So to be fair let me ask some questions. If Iraq doesn't have a "gun" then why are they destroying them? If Iraq doesn't have chemical and biological components then why were they found? If Iraq has no intention of hurting the US then what is Salman Pak there for? If there is no link between Al Queda and Iraq then why did Usama say there was in the last video? Also why does Iraq train terrorists of all nationalities? If Iraq couldn't launch these weapons into the US then how did the fellas from 9/11 get here. No, they didn't have a rocket strapped to their backsides nor were they carrying a biological, chemical or nuclear payload but they certainly did a lot of damage, plus Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capabilities to launch missiles into the US but they sure did a good job with the hijackers. Saddam is better equipped than Saudi Arabia so just think of all the things he could do if given the chance besides training terrorists.
"On another point, lets face it, the War on Terrorism is a joke. Its like declaring a war on hate. At no point in time will we be able to say that we have won. We will never get them all. We will never be free of people that hate us and want to harm us via terrorist action. It is a war that we can never win and a war with no end."
First your implication is that by the War in Iraq we've given up on looking for Al Queda and Bin Ladin, but we haven't. We've capture at last count some 3,000 Al Queda and suspected Al Queda including a king pin all while this war planning has been going on. Can we do two things at once? Evidently we can and quite well I might add. Can we win the war on terroism? Yes. How long will it take? I don't know about you but I'll fight it for as long as I have to because I'm just that kind of guy
A war with no end? Aren't they all?
"I am not against the war on Iraq, I just think we have more pressing problems right now. I don't think it is the right time. If nothing else, we should at least try to get more countries behind us so we don't end up paying the entire bill. Bush is clearly not the diplomat that his father was. Still, I think we should not "misunderestimate" his people skills."
GW is an intresting conundrum "because" of his father not "despite" his father. Basically Bush 41 was a softer spoken easier going person and thus was seen as being very diplomatic and good at putting others at ease where GW is seen as more brash, blunt and direct. The one thing taken out of the equation and so often over looked by people such as yourself is the times and circumstances that present themselves. During GW's fathers presidency we had not been attached on our own soil and liberating Kuwait was done for our allies. Today we face attacks on our own soil, attacks on our allies and the proliferation of weapons for indiscriminant purposes. All of this amid an air that has been poisoning this country for some time now called pasivity. Being passive is a weakness not a strength when using it to deal with people such as Saddam and his ilk.
For people such as Saddam if you want to sit for a hunger strike not only will he let you but he'll even take your food away so you can't change your mind in the future. Think of it this way, if I were Saddam and you decided to stand unarmed in front of my tank, I would run you over, but if you moved out of the way I would shoot you. Why? Because you came to fight a battle unarmed. So what you have are two people fighting for the same goal but fighting two completely different battles. Diplomacy with Saddam won't work. 12 years plus of diplomacy haven't worked with Saddam. Another problem that GW faces because Saddam expects us to be weak and expects the president to back down because that is what has happened for so many years. Now that we're not backing down it's a whole new ball game. No one except us knows what to do so, caos and confusion are what's guiding some of our allies presently. They talked tough but once it came down to it they weren't prepared for actually having to do anything and never expected to have to honestly.
Well, that's about all I can add for now but don't worry about not having the necessary information to make an educated assessment of the situation. Unless you spend as much time as some of us do looking at news and current events or perusing politics you might not ever be privy to this information.
Take care,
DRC.
