>Maybe so. At least there was a direct offense with the hostage situation. What would be our rationale for attacking them now? That we think they may be up to something?
>
>I'm not trying to attack anyone personally here....but I'm astonished by the naïveté of some of these responses. Not only was there a direct offense with the hostage situation - Iran's senior government officials (with help from Syria) backed the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which killed a total of 300 people, including about 240 servicemen.
>
>Prior to 9/11, this was the biggest state-sponsored terrorist attack against U.S. citizens. FOLKS, 240 SERVICEMAN WERE KILLED IN THEIR SLEEP BY A STATE-SPONSORED SUICIDE BOMBER.
>
>The United States basically did NOTHING...an absolute disgrace.
>
>Apologists and appeasers that have tainted our country's foreign policy when dealing with obvious threats. And state-sponsored terrorists know this - that they can attack us, and then sit back and watch all the bickering as we decide not to fight back for fear of retaliation. This country needs another Truman.

I was there and the U.S. did nothing, nobody did anything. Just like Clinton did nothing to prevent 9/11. Maybe those Marines shoulda finished in high school....