The other reason for going after Saddam is that he's the weakest link in the Arab world of dictators -- he's disliked in the Arab world as well as in the West, so no-one will miss him. I think some of the more idealistic people in the Bush adminstration are hopeful that there might be a domino effect in the Middle East, with other states leaning toward democracy or at least an opening up of their government as was recently announced in Saudi Arabia.
The risk of another major terrorist attack is high with or without the war. Osama bin Laden will hang any attacks on the war with Iraq, but if we didn't go to war, he'd hang it on something else. What was September 11 in retaliation for? It was in retaliation for being American. People said there would be attacks after America liberated Kuwait. Do you remember the long flowery speeches Saddam made, in which he seemed to be instructing people to move forward with terrorist attacks - he said things like "Ahmed, go to the bank", "Mohammad, proceed with the plan" and on and on for hours, literally, wanting these messages to be played on CNN. But in fact, nothing happened.
I know what you mean about trust. I can't say much about George Bush, but I trust Tony Blair. I don't see him as a puppet at all and he's not a warmonger. If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and if we don't go to war and he used them one day, think how high the number of casualties would be then. So I suppose we're risking some now, to save more later.
Sarah
At 9:55 PM -0800 02/16/2003, David Marine wrote:
Certainly when we hear about the conditions in Iraq, we feel compelled to take action. What if it is true, however, that a war with Iraq may increase
the chances of a retaliatory terrorist attack?
