Now now, Mike, take it easy. If you read the fine piece from the journal Foreign Policy that was placed on this thread a few days ago, you would have understood the logic in favor of a non-war alternative. The issue is NOT whether Saddam has or uses weapons of mass destruction. We all know that he has or did at one time. The issue is whether there is an EFFECTIVE DETERRENT to his using those weapons if he has them. The article mentioned above showed that there were and still are a number of effective deterrents. THAT is the main objective of either a war or non-war policy.
As far as raping and killing go, if we are going to police the world against rape and killing, why not start in China and North Korea, and don't overlook Myanmar, Cuba, and several African states. The notion that preventing rape and killing justifies an offensive war against only one of the guilty states is simply an effort to get public support.
But since you think we should actively stop rape and killing, tell me what you would do about that in China. Meanwhile, don't forget that we've so far done nothing to deter what is currently the worst threat for using weapons of mass destruction--North Korea.
Bush and his buddies may have bamboozled you, but many others, especially those with relevant experience overseas, are not convinced, and think he's got another agenda.
Art |
