|
|
|
|
OT--WMD's may still be found
In article . net,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
says...
Well Jeez, Saudi Arabia was a safe haven and provided funding for al
Qaeda long before we went to Iraq. Further, 15 or the 19 hijackers who
conspired to kill 3000 of our brethren were Saudi nationals. Why didn't
we invade their country?
Because our economy couldn't handle the economic shock of the lost oil
supply. Of course, Iraq provides not only the staging area to strike
against the other countries in the region...but also enough oil to keep our
economy going should bin Laden successfully oust the Saudi royals.
So economic considerations should trump Bush's "Charge to keep?" That's
not very Christian of you.
There's plenty of evidence of terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia right
now!
Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?
Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There may not be
a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate them from the
rest of the Middle East.
Huh? Isolate them in the eyes of Arabs in the mid-east vs. the US?
Don't think so. They're the ones who produced and supported bin Laden,
remember?
Would you like to
send your children?
Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2 and 1 years
old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather than in 13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries have nukes.
Bottom line: You'd prefer to send other people's kids to die or be
maimed, either physically or mentally or both.
Good one.
|