Well, I understood your posts differently, though I don't agree that mine were irrational, if that's what you are suggesting.
If dialogue is good but (for the sake of argument, since you are not expressing your opinion one way or the other on this second part) Saddam must be dealt with, what should those who want to deal with Saddam do if others on the Security Council would rather look the other way?
I believe the League of Nations fiasco has something to teach us about that, but regardless of whether you agree with that, I think you'll admit that there comes a point where dialogue ends and action (or inaction) begins. In your view, have we reached that point? Are we near that point? Far away? Should it take another (thirteenth) year?
Or do you believe that America was justified when it said, through Colin Powell, that "enough is enough."? |
