One of the reasons given for the US not to attack Iraq is the idea that if we do, we will be subjected to a new wave of devastating terror attacks.
How exactly would these attacks be carried out? Well, logically one must assume that there are terrorists either in the US today, or in close proximity to our borders ready to cross at a moment’s notice. Otherwise this is nothing more than a hollow threat.
Knowing what we know about 11 Sep, we can also assume that Al Qaeda and its cohorts take pains to do detailed planning and preparation. This takes time, say a year or so. Or they might opt for less damaging attacks like car bombs or gunfire in shopping malls. But even those require some degree of training and coordination to pull off. Even if the perpetrators will be among the dead.
The pro Iraq debaters are arguing that terrorists are holding a gun to our heads. And that if we do nothing then we will not suffer. Does that make any sense? You spend years and millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, run incalculable risks to set these things up, but then you don’t use them. Sure, that makes sense if you are addicted to crack.
Just what was it that earned us 11 Sep? Occupation of some remote bases in Saudi Arabia? Blowing up a ten dollar tent in Afghanistan with a 2 million dollar missile? Seems to me that Saddam was on the back burner for most of the 90s, except when he was needed to wag the dog, anyway. So it can’t be about Iraq. It must be about something else. And we all know what that is.
They hate us and want us dead!
Secure in the knowledge that we have earned the undying enmity of the Islamo-Fascists, just how is it that caving into their "demands" to leave Hussein alone is promoting our safety?