news.yahoo.com
Look, if Saddam had actually done anything- like invade another country, for example, I could have supported an invasion. But preemption, even if there had been something there, is not a strategy I think leads to a stable world. It's even worse when it turns out you were preempting nothing. I get that you believe there was something to preempt, or that there might have been something to preempt, eventually- but I do not find that a convincing reason to wage a war. In the end the reasons you accept for waging war ARE going to be an article of faith- and your faith is different from mine.
Sadly I can't say I like where your faith has led Iraq, or the money your faith is costing the US.
It would be nice if you could skip the name calling with the "liberal elites" garbage. It doesn't add anything to your post. We don't need to try to label each other. We simply disagree based on the facts available at this time on what a basis for a war should be. I understand the information out there, and I have read what you have read, we simply have different ways of interpreting and dealing with the same information. This is not a question of issues of fact, we disagree on matters of opinion, and you aren't likely to convince anyone that your opinion is better posting the way you do. I'm sure the choir will appreciate it, but if you're trying to win anyone else over, you need a change of tactic (imo). |
