| Viewing Single Post From: New guy | |
|---|---|
| Miragememories | May 14 2009, 10:27 AM |
|
I never said you did! My point is that there's a big difference between a limited attack and a full invasion.
The best idea, was to create a "shock 'n awe" National Emergency. Israel can easily set their military sights on any hostile neighboring country that lobs a missile their way because the history of conflict there has been well established and in the absence of a peace agreement, the threat remains constant. Not so in the United States which hadn't been attacked since WWII. The 9/11 scenario was based on terrorist suicide attacks which the public, as expected, thanks to the MEDIA, quickly associated with Al-Qaeda. The public had no expectation or reason to readily believe that Iraq would ever mount a major suicide attack on the U.S. I recall absolutely no MEDIA consideration of Iraq on 9/11, or the days immediately following, that would suggest that Iraq might have played any part in the 9/11 attacks.
All the more reason the U.S. could not 'immediately' target Iraq. But, Al-Qaeda, an organization, and not Iraq, a country, was the declared enemy behind 9/11.
I explained that.
Because to the American Public, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad were Israel's enemy. Only Al-Qaeda had been MEDIA-promoted as a serious threat to the U.S. A military confrontation with those organizations would directly embroil the U.S. in the Palestinian problem and seriously risk disrupting critically important relations with other arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Take a look at the Vietnam war. The U.S. never invaded North Vietnam because of their fear that it would escalate into a confrontation with China and the USSR. Afghanistan and Iraq were home to unpopular regimes, considered to be low risk adversaries, and having neighbors unlikely to provide military assistance. MM Edited by Miragememories, May 14 2009, 10:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New guy · Skeptics | |




12:32 PM Nov 26