I don’t know if anyone’s considered the following.
Richard Clarke, in his book “Against All Enemies” states that, “Having been attacked by Al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.”
However, was there any way that we could have utilized Iraq in a legitimate war against those who attacked us? Possibly.
Was there violence in Iraq caused by Islamic radicals under Saddam’s iron fisted, tyrannical rule? No. Why not? Because Saddam headed a secular state, not an Islamic theocracy.
If, indeed, considering the reciprical disdain Saddam and bin Laden felt, we were to do anything in or with Iraq after 9/11, wouldn’t it have made more sense to recruit Iraq in our efforts to hunt down bin Laden and Al Qaida? We could have even used this as a carrot, so to speak, for Saddam. We could have said that his aid in this matter would lead to the UN lifting its inhumane sanctions against Iraq.
It isn’t like we never dealt with Iraq on friendly terms.
Now doesn’t that image of post 9/11 Iraq look more logical than it now looks? In fact, doesn’t that image of post 9/11 Iraq cause this “war” to look even more rediculous and outrageous?
Not only did we invade the wrong place, we essentially eliminated a source which would have helped us bring the “real” culprits to justice.
Of course that’s just another piece of evidence which proves that the real culprits have yet to be identified by mainstream America.