To: CYBERKEN who wrote (382888 ) 3/31/2003 3:09:23 PM From: E Read Replies (1) | Respond to There are serious, sober analysts (William Kristol comes to mind; so does Kenneth Pollack; so does Peter Baehr) who hold the position that our "preventive" or "preemptive" attack on Iraq is the best course for ending this hostile regime with its access to indefinite amounts of money, and destroying its ability to operate behind the scenes in subsidizing our enemies. Whether they supply WMD or nasty weapons of any sort is not, in this analysis, the main point. They would say that, short of a regime change , an objective beyond what the UN process was going to accomplish, unacceptably high levels of danger would continue to exist. For example, disarmament wouldn't address subsidies and other encouragement to organized terrorism, and would be irrelevant to Saddam's ability to pursue WMD through proxies.
