And how, pray, do you intend to do this without violating the sovereignty of whatever country the terrorists happen to be in?
Nuance. We hit'm hard with nuance. <g>
Seriously, I'm making a distinction between violating the sovereignty of a country by popping in and unloading on a pack of terrorists that threaten us in a quasi-police action vs. "declaring" war on a country, taking the country on rather than the terrorist renegades, taking over the country. I realize that's a bit of a tight squeeze. But all of this is a tight squeeze if you don't cling strictly to one end or the other. The paradigms are shifting all around us and it's hard to find solid footing, legitimacy. I expect what my country does to be clearly legitimate.
How can you talk as if Iraq were some random sovereign country?
I realize that Iraq was on borrowed time based on the previous war and the UN sanctions. If we took over Iraq on that basis, then it should have been because the UN's patience ran out, not ours. Technically, they were UN sanctions. OTOH, if we took over Iraq on the basis of the US war on terrorism, then we needed a clearer, more immediate connection with potential terrorist attacks on us than what we had. Now maybe some can put the two of them together, half of each, and come up with a whole. I have tried and failed.
I realize these seem like fine points to those who are in with both feet. For those of us more temperate and conservative when it comes to establishing precedents, breaking old ties, and starting wars, they seem important and we're distressed by how cavalierly some brush them off. |
