A.) Take that up with Tartarin. I think her comments, in context, were interesting, while I don't completely agree. This is what worries me (among other things):
Quote:Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely ?- and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea's nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.
Paul Krugman, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18KRUG.html
That is, I believe, the crux of what Tartarin is saying -- if we do win this war decisively, what next? Mightn't it be better if this train is stopped?
Again, take it up with her, though. That's just my take on it.
B.) I think we all agree that there are situations in which a legitimately elected goverment does illegitimate things. It's important for there to be an ongoing debate, and as much as transparency as possible, as to whether legitimate actions are shading into illegitimacy. I think it is very, very dangerous to sit back and say "Well, they were elected, so they have a carte blance. I'll just wait 'til the next election." I know you are not suggesting as much. Right?
