"providing an object lesson to those who might doubt our willingness to resort to force if necessary."
I agree with you there. Kissinger said, "Diplomacy is meaningless without a credible threat of force behind it." (Perhaps not an exact quote.)
"He was trying to get rid of sanctions and reconstitute his WMD capabilities, and remained interested in restarting work on nukes."
Trying to get rid of sanctions is not a justification for war. South Africa fought against sanctions during apartheid, but I don't think any one took that as a cue to go to war there.
"Pursuing nukes" sounds like what Iran is up to. Do you believe it is necessary to go to war there? Certainly Iran is more capabable of building a bomb than Saddam has ever been. Plus, you must agree, going to war with Iran now makes sense while there is a strong troop presence in the region. (Oh yes, and don't they export terrorism too.)
As well, I understand Syria is a sponsor of terrorism. Do you believe war must be waged with that country too, and now, while troops are nearby.
And then, why not bring about a regime change in Saudia Arabia, seeing as the majority of the 9/11 attackers were from that country and, again, the troops are nearby, so let's go for it.
Anyway, you say it made sense to go after Saddam because of a terror threat. I don't buy it, most experts I have read say Pakistan and Afghhanistan are the regions of the world that are the breeding ground of international terrorism. Plus, Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear knowledge with ... Korea and who knows where elses. And how come Osama Bin Laden isn't the big boogey man anymore. When did Saddam Hussein take that spot. |
