THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

I'm wondering, because some people on this topic seems to think it's okay. I think it's overkill - depending on what we're talking about, and at what point it becomes "noble."

Furthermore, while we wait to be certain, innocent people other than us will pay the price for our waiting and unwillingness to act until the evidence is conclusive. What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what I think is wrong with that! I think that's indifferent, irresponsible and even cowardly. It's like a paraphrase of that quote of Reagan's: Some folks think that if they keep feeding others to the alligators, they will be the last to be eaten.

Life is a gamble whether I or you like it or not. To decide not to make judgments is as much a judgment as deciding to make a judgment.

Second guessing what should have been done or thought after the event requires far less courage than acting before the event to preclude the event.

That's what past presidents did! They waited! What's wrong with that?

We could certainly have waited until the UN weapons inspectors had finished. They were asking for a couple of months. We now know that there are no wmd in Iraq and were none when Bush launched the war. If he had allowed the inspectors time to do their job, the war could have been avoided. The difficulty for the warmongers was that delay meant fighting in hot weather. Also they probably knew that the inspectors were likely to conclude that there were no wmd in Iraq, and that would have destroyed the case for war. So invade now and don't ask questions later seems to have been the rule.

Thomas; I have mad respect for your intellect and your usually very well thought out perspectives, but I think Scrat is right this time. Much of the world doubted the credibility of the American and British intelligence and more pointedly the amount of threat that Saddam actually posed. Few countries, however, doubted he possessed illegal weapons. Saddam's past behavior clearly makes it a head-in-the-sand position to just assume he didn't. You can blame Saddam himself for kicking out the inspectors in 1998 (and to some degree Bill Clinton for letting him get away with it), for the lack of hard evidence one way or another. If forced to guess if a convicted felon, with 17 straight parole violations is in compliance; I too would prefer to err on the side of caution. I further think it's completely reasonable to re-assess the threshold of risk we are willing to accept in light of the tragedy of 9-11.

9-11 even; wasn't the nightmarish holocaust that it could have been. The unprecedented risks associated with WMD's make the noble ideal of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" entirely too great. Whenever possible; we must reduce these risks, even if it means we have to take risks to do it.

As pointed out by many; Saddam posed a much lesser threat than say; Kim Jong Il. That coupled with the decade of failed diplomacy, in my book; made Iraq the perfect place to start. I only hope the difficulties and tragedies associated with this first step, do not destroy our resolve to rid the planet of the potential horrors that WE WILL FACE if we don't finish what we've started.

Steve is right of course too. Our credibility in the eyes of the world has certainly suffered do to Bush's exaggerations (or lies if you prefer). However: Learning that Saddam didn't pose the immediate threat that we mistakenly guestimated, does not absolve Saddam of his sins. He did possess weapons with an illegal engine diameter size and we now know he was attempting to procure Rodong missile technology from North Korea. The century old quote "Politics makes strange bedfellows" remains quite true.

My apologies to Phoenix, if I've strayed too far off topic. I am merely trying to demonstrate why I believe a strong, even arrogant in his delivery, Commander in Chief is a necessary evil in these troubled times. These problems won't cure themselves. Gone is the time when oppressed peoples can rise up on their own to overthrow their evil oppressors. Without help from a superior force; many of the world's citizens will suffer untold horrors, generation after generation, until some despot or other launches a Nuke to protect his position. I for one would prefer we take whatever risks necessary; to attempt to reduce this threat before it's too late (if indeed, it isn't already). I despise war as much as anyone, but recognize the necessity, and believe the sooner we face these horrific truths, the less costly they will be. Removing Hitler, at an advanced stage, proved very costly indeed. Just imagine that monster with Nukes; and you will understand why I hold the position of a "warmonger".
Peace, out.