That's quite a picture you paint; you are wrong in many ways.
SadDam is gleeful at acts of terror against America and others, and as surely as you know he's a terrible guy, you must too know that disarming him cannot, by definition, "hurt our war on terrorism" as you state.
Yes, I see an imminent threat from SadDam, his values, and his brainwashed threatened minions. It is good not to allow such a tyrant to continue on.
It is not a big question whether Britain will put forth "much of an effort." Blair is in total control, and he KNOWS SadDams 12 year act of defiance represents a real threat.
The war on SadDam will prove to be a blow against terrorism, and almost certainly against Al Qaeda itself too.
This proposed action is NOT about Bush's pride, it's about his conviction and promise to defend America after 911(not that he shouldn't be proud when he's done).
The "set-up" was not dishonestly conceived from the beginning. SadDam loved 911, is actively hiding weapons, and needs to go.
By and large, the world does trust us, and will in the end if Bush completes this action as planned.
The end game is clear - find and disarm murderous zealots and establish Democracies(hopefully, Republics!!!).
SadDam hasn't made war in over a Decade? OH? Who's that firing at our ever peaceloving jets in the no-fly zones week in and week out? Why has the "creep" been actively hiding WMD's throughout those 12 years, as detailed by inspectors? What atrocities has he committed against his own people in that time, to boot? SadDam has flatly not been clean for 12 years, as you would have the reader consider.
It is not mainly about the oil. It is about stamping out a free world hating murderous tyrant, and certainly 911 spurs this call to appropriate action against this defiant ever-lying tyrant. If SadDam cheered on 9/11/01(certainly), he will now be left to blame 9/11/01 for his demise(justifiably so).
We are particularly damned, if we DON'T act, by far, without worthy question.
SadDam is clearly NOT in a tight box. Yet. The "box" you refer to is costing us to maintain. It will be cheaper to disarm him, than keep him in such a box as you've alluded to, for any length of time.
The world is NOT paralyzed.
Having started seeking U.N. blessings, we never-the-less obviously do NOT need it as you suggest(you must be dreaming).
We NEED To do this for the sake of the world, and "this" didn't start with and will not stop at, SadDam, god willing. Bush and Blair are correct; the greatest risk lies in inaction.
To the victors go the spoils as,
Freedom Works and tyrants die, both now and in the eyes of History. To not heed this reality with action today, would denote a willing suicide.
Dan B |
