CB....good suggestion...Have printed out 10 pages of the report. However, here is the first section....and my comments in bold.... As you can see, probably most of us are both hawk and dove....and therein lies room for discussion....
CUTTING THE GORDIAN KNOT
As the conflict in Afghanistan winds down, the question of what the United States should do about Iraq has risen to the forefront of American foreign policy. Hawks argue that toppling Saddam Hussein should be "phase two" in the war on terrorism.
If this is being a Hawk, then I guess that I am, as long as the present regime is there, but we can't just wipe out an entire regime, now can we??? ..."they see Iraq's development of unconventional weapons as a critical threat to U.S. national interests" .....
and want to parlay the success of the Afghan campaign into a similar operation further west.
No, I don't think this is correct....unless, of course, it is all under the 'guise' of routing out the terrorists wherever they are...
Are you saying that there are no even semi-large groups of terrorists in Iraq, and that there should not be any concern here?????
Those who pass for doves in the mainstream debate point to the difficulty of such an undertaking and the lack of any evidence tying Saddam to the recent attacks on the United States.
Don't disagree with either of those statements....However, this leaves out the thought that maybe, perhaps, and probably, our Foreign Policy Leaders DO HAVE this evidence, or maybe, perhaps, and probably they wouldn't have been making these statements!! If anyone thinks otherwise, I'd like to know why they think so...
They argue that the goal of America's Iraq policy should be to revive U.N. weapons inspections and re-energize containment.
Both camps have it partly right -- and partly wrong.
Yes. Mugwumps are good.
Thanks to Washington's own missed opportunities and others' shameful cynicism, there are no longer any good policy options toward Iraq.
The hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but they are right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam as so worrisome that it requires drastic action.
This would be an accurate statement as far as I am concened: ...."but they are right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam as so worrisome that it requires".....SOME SORT OF ACTION. What action to take....? How much time do we have to fool around.....?
The doves, meanwhile, are right about Iraq's not being a good candidate for a replay of Operation Enduring Freedom, but they are wrong to think that inspections and deterrence are adequate responses to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.
What kind of inspection and deterrence program do we have that is different than the previous program? Who will oversee it? How are we sure that Iraq will really comply, and not just show us what he thinks we "need to know"
After the more immediate danger posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network has been dealt with, the Bush administration should indeed turn its attention to Baghdad. What it should do at that point, however, is pursue the one strategy that offers a way out of the impasse. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors.
AND I QUOTE: "What it should do at that point, however, is pursue the one strategy that offers a way out of the impasse. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors"............DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA? "Eliminate the present regime"...........This sounds really hawkish to me...... |
