[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thoran: I think it had a LOT to do with 9/11... but not in the way that most people think it did. 9/11 changed the US, essentially putting us on notice that we ARE at war... like it or not. Forces centered in the middle east are acting to inflict damage on the US, but they're doing it in a way that does not provide a traditional target for response (a country to attack). This sense of being under assault but with no clear attacker has changed the way the US Government approaches conflict. In the past the US (and most other nations) REACTED to attacks, current Bush doctrine has moved to proactive strikes in order to mitigate risk of future attack. The "Proof" of Saddam's cooperation with terrorists (if it even exists) is irrelevant given this new decision matrix. The executive branch came to the conclusion that the risk posed by terrorists combining effort with a potentially WOMD equipped Saddam was too great to allow to stand. I tend to think that once this decision was made, they went about finding a reason to attack Saddam... which wasn't difficult given his actions over the past 12+ years. I'm of the opinion that countries that support Islamic terrorists or that have the potential of placing WOMD level armaments into the hands of terrorist will find life very difficult over the next few years. They will have to balance the pressures of citizens that often support the behavior of terrorists against US pressure to root them out and eradicate them. As long as Bush is in power in the US, failure to distance themselves from WOMD and Terrorism (the two things that pose the greatest threat to the US) will result in action that will potentially include PREEMPTIVE application of force. This is the true legacy of 9/11.

Really now! So then why are we pretty much ignoring NK. Which has a long history of selling arms to anyone with hard currency and has public restarted it's nuclear program. Instead we have the administration trading barbs with Syria *boggle*