By that reasoning, it would be even more important for us to take Iran right now. I don't see that in the works.
Neither do I. Iran has a nascent reform movement which may succeed. If it fails and the Mad Mullahs continue their path to nuclear weaponry, the consequences may be serious indeed. Their focus seems to be on Israel, which can deter them effectively. So far, there are no signs that the Iranians are interested in Saddam-like nuclear blackmail. Saddam was a lunatic, the Mullahs I think have the capacity to listen to reason.
i don't underestimate the Iranian danger, but I do think it is much less than the danger Saddam or his sons posed.
As to the "misunderstanding," it seems to me that the Lefty Media is doing all it can to perpetuate any such misunderstanding. I certainly never perceived a Saddam/AQ responsibility for 9/11 being pushed as a justification for war, and the Bush Administration did not say one existed, either.
If your homeowner or dental insurance covers replacements but not maintenance,
There is no insurance for the kind of threat Saddam presented, only risk.
Certain things have to be done with or without world support. I take my child to the dentist whether he likes it or not. I fix my foundation whether it costs me a bit now because I know it will cost me a lot more later.
The French, the Russians, and everyone else who profited from trade with Saddam would have never supported the venture, unless Saddam had already taken serious steps to control the flow of oil. By then, their support would have been irrelevant. A prophylactic ridding of Saddam, like all things prophylactic, was destined to be unpopular.
The Russians and the French all had their self-interest to protect, even though their perception of their own self-interest in my view was quite myopic from a long term perspective.
In the ultimate analysis, Saddam's continued presence as we slid down Hubbert's Peak was absolutely intolerable. |
