I'm not saying they should, at least not without the local "fighters" standing shoulder to shoulder. Problem there could be that in Iraq, how do you tell friend form foe that is not in a U.S. or coalition uniform?
The fact is that this area of the world is, among many things, unstable and therefore a ripe breeding ground for terrorists. I doubt even that whacko Gsholz would argue that Hussein was violently oppressing his own people with rape, murder and torture.
To argue tha there were more serious threats to the U.S. is just plain foolish. Example:
Terrorsits were/are our most immediate threat and NK is not breeding terrorists to the degree that the middle East is.
Some argue that we are creating terrorists by having a military presence in Iraq. I bet that is true. I ask, how can one reasonable expect every single person to be happy about any given scenario, even utopia? There will always be malcontents who blame their lot in life on someone else.
So, why not topple the Iraqi regime and at the same time try to bring some stability into the area which is the biggest threat to the world? Sure it's risky, but think of the upside.
The possibility to bring some stability to the area and a strong ally against the inhumane govts in the Middle East should be ample reason to take the risks the coalition did.*
Few of the naysayers are considering that we, in spite of their doomsaying, may just be successful in Iraq. What then? What will Gsholz and his unhinged cronies say then? Will they say "well done!" No, like the malcontents in Iraq, they will continue to rail against the U.S. and her allies.
I say let them scream their indignance, while the bulk of Iraqi's bask in the warnth of freddom that you and I greet each day as a given.
