First off, I do you have dyslexia? PartyTime is PT, not TP.
Secondly, I've several times written on this thread what Bush could do to get out of the box he's put himself in, that is without resorting to the war.
The simplicity of the matter is this: The US and Britain waging a war on Irag does not meet the test for a valid war:
a) Is the war of just cause, in defense of one's self or others? It's not.
b) Have all remedies been exhausted to solve the probelm without resorting to war? The recent Security Council deliberations where 13 of the 15 nations called for more inspections and containment show that all remedies have not been exhausted, no matter how much Bush wants the war.
c) Will waging the war itself mean more danger to people than not doing the war? The war is rightfully aimed at Al Qaeda and shouldn't be wrongfully aimed at Iraq. By invading Iraq Al Qaeda not only gets strenthened as worldwide popular opinion turns against the US, but other terrorist organizations who otherwise would not be waging terrorism on the US will join the Al Qaeda fray.
It's my belief that Iraq is hiding some chemical-like weapons, but that this is being done for defensive purposes. Contrary to the many exaggerated assertions which have been made, Saddam's track record for using such weapons has been defensive (see the writing of Stephen Pelletiere, US Army College professor and former CIA Iraq analyst).
Finally, KLP, I support a war against terror. But I do not support a war that'll likely create more terrorists. |
