Re: Iraq by the Economist.
economist.com
This part grabbed me:
None of these Republicans—and few of America’s allies—would quibble with the Bush administration’s assertion that Mr Hussein is evil. Most would also accept that he is a danger to his people, the region and, ultimately, America, and is, on the balance of evidence, maintaining and developing an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s latest offer to resume talks on readmitting UN weapons inspectors, last Friday, again fell far short of the unconditional acceptance of unfettered, intrusive inspection that the UN Security Council has long demanded. There is widespread agreement that getting rid of Mr Hussein would be a good thing. What the administration has yet to show the doubters, however, is, in Mr Eagleburger’s words, “why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it.”
If it is the case that "most" would agree he is a danger and bent on building WMD, the question SHOULD NOT be "why attack now?" The question should be "why are you all opposed now?" Need we wait for the inevitable?
Derek |
