Letter: Big differences between Pearl Harbor, 9/11

Saturday, Dec. 2, 2006 | 7:07 a.m.

Regarding Stuart L. Posselt's Nov. 29 letter, "United we stood, and so should we stand now":

Yes, Japan attacked us on Dec. 7, 1941. But we knew who our enemy was. It was Japan. When 9/11 occurred, Mr. Posselt specified that we were attacked by Muslim terrorists. What specific country were they from? (11 were from Saudi Arabia.) Should we have invaded that country, or maybe Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey or numerous other countries that harvest Muslim terrorists? Check your facts. Were any of these 9/11 terrorists from Iraq? Invading Iraq was like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor (I cannot take credit for that quote). The only justification for war was with Afghanistan, where we should have stayed until that "mission was accomplished."

And, yes, Japan was resolved and two cities were destroyed but all due to the atomic bomb. Which brings to mind another issue. The reason we invaded Iraq: WMDs (not 9/11). Of course none was found, so we were told numerous other fallacies as to the reason we are still there. As NBC has now claimed (and I agree), Iraq is at civil war (if not worse).

President Bush has said as recently as Nov. 28 that we are not leaving until the job is completed. Pray tell, just what is the job? And just who is it we are fighting? The Sunnis and/or Shiites in a civil war, insurgents, al-Qaida ?

When Mr. Posselt mentioned 3,000 killed on 9/11, it is almost the same number as the more than 2,880 military who have been killed in Iraq. He asks what has happened to America's desire to be free. Let's ask the same question to the more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis who lost their lives for "freedom."

LaRue S. Boenig, Henderson