People were being killed on CNN everyday, ethnic cleansing was going on, concentration camps with images of people starving.
So, these activities outrage you more [morally] than do the actions of Saddam? Or is it just that CNN had access in the Balkins while Saddam controls the media in Iraq?
Iraq is not an active war
It most certainly is. We paused a war on the basis of Iraq's commitment to disarm. They didn't do it. The war resumes. The war has simply been in a state of pause to see whether Saddam would comply with his commitments; he didn't.
...it is a presumed threat, with lots of constraints keeping it in check.
It is a CLEAR threat. The constraints that are keeping it in check today are there only because we are threatening war. We can't keep 300K troops in the region indefinitely, and we can't count on having a strong president year after year. What happens if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry gets elected? We're back where we are today, but with Saddam potentially have nukes. No thanks.
It should be obvious that Iraq can be contained diplomatically and by a forceful display, such as Bush has undertaken.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You cannot have diplomatic relations with a liar. Period. The entire concept of diplomacy is based on a man's word being good. Once that is not the case, diplomacy is a fool's errand.
As pointed out previously, we cannot maintain a "forceful display" indefinitely. We're in the region now, we've still got NK to deal with, we need to solve this problem once and for all, free these people, elminate the threat, and be done with it. |
