| I suppose it is possible that you eschew war as an instrument of policy, but, if so, no need to pick on Bush. Otherwise, your attempted witticism is ludicrous. We are not deliberately targeting civilians, quite the contrary, we are taking casualties because we are trying to limit collateral damage. We are not going to war in the name of "our God", we are going to war in the name of defense. We are not going to war to redeem our honor, but in order to destroy the center of terrorist and rogue state activities that threaten us, and have been demonstrated to have become emboldened and more efficacious due to the attacks of 9/11. You may object to the invasion of Iraq as a side- show, but it is not. On the basis of the best intelligence estimates, Iraq was a threat. The question that divided the Americans and British from the French and Germans was the need to resolve the threat once and for all, rather than to continue with the policy of containment. Since America was expected to deal with Iraq either way, its preferred solution prevailed. Considering the scandal of children dying due to the diversion of oil- for- food/medicine money, it was the most humane thing to do, to take out Saddam once and for all........... |
