Sorry about your bruised ego JohnM maybe you should get out more. There is probably little point to further exchange since we won't agree on some basic issues. But, since you asked...here goes.
You don't see the near term acquisition of nuclear weapons by Saddam as an issue of survivability and I unequivocally do. You liken words such as "containment" to a solution and I consider the concept a euphemism for "all form and no substance". The concept of containment as it relates to Saddam Hussein has been a fraud perpetrated on the world for the past twelve years and belongs right alongside "give it more time" and the need for a "second" resolution. There have been no less than eighteen resolutions and the only reason that this issue has been elevated to this point is because George Bush, God bless him, won't let it go away.
Frankly there is not any point to the debate. Within one month, Saddam Hussein will be history. The only alternative to that would be his agreeing to exile, a move I consider less likely thanks to the spirited indecision of our "allies"(a term to be used loosely) and the "loyal" opposition of our fellow countrymen.
I am truly sick of hearing the political agendas bantered about by every loose cannon with a germ of an idea. There has been nothing new under the sun proffered in a long time. The decisions have already been made and the clock is ticking. The United Nations will come along kicking and screaming or it won't. The time for debate is passed. Save it for the after action report.
I hate war with a greater passion than you could possibly imagine. My family has been in every one since the Civil War. My grandfather was gassed in WWI. My father served in WWII and Korea, decorated with the DSC, the Silver Star, Bronze Star and 4 purple hearts. He suffers the pain from those wounds to this day but does so with great dignity. I and two brothers were decorated in Vietnam. Though denied combat I also provided logistical support for Desert Storm. My son enters West Point in 16 months. I know first hand the ugliness of war. I also know that at times there is no viable alternative to the "last resort". More importantly, I know that, when the decision is made, the time for dissent is over and, all protestations to the contrary, we are there my friend.
People who are far closer to the issues than you or I, people who our nation elected to lead this country for four years, have made their assessment. Over 200,000 troops and the greatest armament of all time are rapidly being deployed and absolutely nothing you or I say will or should change that decision.
Is this war immoral. Absolutely not! Any immorality stems from the ambivalence of those unwilling to take a stand for mankind's right to live without fear of recrimination or of random acts from a psychopathic dictator in possession of WMDs. If it were for no other reason than the rights of Iraqi people to be free of the horrific repression of one of the most evil men to ever live, I would gladly support the effort. But it is so much more than that.
The "invasion of Iraq" is in no one's best interest. The removal of WMD's and the ruthless maniac, from Iraq, are in everyone's best interest (but Hussein and possibly a morally bankrupt France). We'll not have one without implement of the other. Iraq has no business with these weapons. A world body unwilling to remove them forcefully when "no other option" exists has no legitimacy. To solicit permission from the Security Council is pure folly.
If you find my words "hostile", JohnM, be especially glad you never served in my unit. |
