>Ten years. Ok, let's use your number. At what point do we do something and what do we do? 8 years? 9 years?
>That wasn't my point -- my point was that as long as we kept inspectors in Iraq, Saddam was 10 years away from having nukes, if he hadn't given up on 'em already.
We may know this now but what did Clinton know in 1998 and Bush now before the war?
>Sounds like a good reason for the US to continue deploying the antimissile defense shield at a minimum.
>A pipe dream.
It's been tested to work. Granted it cannot stop a large China or Russia attack, but it would stop a North Korea or Iran or Germany or France taking one shot.
>Now what would you suggest we do. Inspections failed.
>Well, they didn't really "fail" -- it seems there were no WMD in Iraq. But, what I'd do is keep soldiers with them so they couldn't be kicked out. I'd rather have inspectors in countries indefinitely than having to go to war.
Are we splitting hairs here? Clinton and Bush were convinced there were WMD in Iraq. Unfortunately we do not know the future today as Clinton and Bush did not know the future when decisions had to be made.
You would keep a few soldiers with the inspectors to prevent them from being thrown out? I don't see how that would work.
>Iraq, North Korea, Iran, any threat. It would seem it would be easier to pay now instead of later.
>How 'bout not at all?
You always plan for the worse and hope for the best. Seems like the media loves the 9/11 commission for saying not enough was done to prevent it, but then they are hypocrites when someone tries to do something. Patriot Act, Missile Defense Shield, Profiling, Fingerprinting aliens, closing the borders, etc.
Not doing anything at all is not an option is it? Are you willing to wait until struck?
>Israel took care of Saddam's initial nuclear threat.
>I don't mind that approach. Pinpoint strikes are better than all-out regime change. Great intelligence makes those strikes possible and efficacious. I'd love it if we had a policy of bombing any nuclear reactor that Iran or North Korea were to build. That's actually a good solution!
I agree. But what happened to your above "how 'bout not at all" position above? I do get the impression that a lot of Kerry's position on Iraq is that he supported removing Saddam, but he didn't like the way it turned out. Well tough; life sucks then you die.
Would you advocate going to Sudan or North Korea or Iran today or when in the near future or not at all?
No, it's the hate Bush crowd. The campaign should be Kerry is better and why, but everyone knows that isn't true evident by it's absence. Try to get AS to present Kerry's positions. It will never happen.
Remember the polls in the beginning? An unnamed democrat would beat Bush yet any named democrat would lose. It still applies today. Kerry can't beat Bush so the effort is campaign on promoting the "anyone but Bush" play. |
