I am not terribly interested in a discussion on what cannot be changed.
A few days ago you accused me of not putting forth seroius, reasoned argument. As you know, liberals have been accused of using this kind of rhetoric in response to ANY argument put forth that opposes their views. So I gave you my reason for blaming Clinton. And now, you don't want to discuss it.
That's fine with me, but let's be honest about WHO is not putting forth the reasoned argument.
case to attack a sovereign nation cannot be made on the basis of the picture of an airstrip, otherwise we should be bombing Canada.
The airtstrip photo was OUR airstrip, not theirs. But the basis for attacking IRAQ is fairly straightforward (as Brian so aptly pointed out).
This is a matter of survival. Simply put, (a) we know Saddam wants us dead, (b) we know he is attempting to build WMD, and (c) we know that once he has them, it is going to be very difficult to do anything about his having them.
So, I have three questions for you: (1) Do you disagree with (a), (b), or (c) above, and if so, what is your disagreement? (2) Is there ANY conceivable alternative to dealing with Saddam other than war (before you answer, please recall the negotiations between Baker & Aziz before the Gulf War, and the way they lied and stubbornly refused to stand down after moving against Kuwait)? (3) What is difficult about this decision?
These are three questions I think ANYONE who is against action in IRAQ should consider and answer. You don't want this guy having nuclear weapons. |
