Ben, I believe that I am a moderate as well, although I am on the right-hand side. I am wrestling with what is the right thing to do. I've added my thoughts below, which unfortunately, are mostly questions for which I would like to see an answer. Unfortunately, we really don't seem to be getting many answers from any direction.
--Yes, Saddam is horrific. So are a lot of other despotic rulers whom we have not singled out. What is the proper role of other countries in creating an overall world order? At what point in time does one country's actions warrant military interaction from another? Can and will the UN every properly serve in this role? --Yes, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He has for at least 12 years. Why is there suddenly a time crisis to deal with this? Is this a "sudden" action or do we now have an administration which can not turn a blind eye to his actions. Is inaction the best route or an excuse to avoid unpleasantness in hopes that it will go away? One might argue that the Korean situation is a perfect example of what can happen from inaction. --Saddam's weapons are probably out of Iraq, stored in Libya or Sudan. If we invade, we will not destroy them. Very interesting thought. scary on at least two fronts. First, this probably increases the access to terrorists. Secondly, if we invade and find nothing, then we will spark an incredible, world-wide back lash. --Do I think there will eventually need to be military action to "liberate" Iraq? Do we have the right and authority to liberate? Under what basis of law? I believe that it is important to create a strong UN that can raise the standard applied to rulers and countries. This is a critical opportunity to create precedence, process and strength. So far, I believe that Bush has played this well, combining a strong display of force and action to drive the issues and a willingness to also moderate to work thru the UN. As we walk this knife's edge, it will be very interesting to see how he handles this latest set-back. --Do I think it MUST be _now_? Does it get any better later on? If Saddam has to go, what is the best way to minimize the impact? --And when our government says "it's NOT about oil", sorry, I don't believe them. Unfortunately, without the oil to fund all of this and the potential destabilization in the surrounding countries, oil is definitely an issue. It is the primary reason as well that other countries are screaming so loudly against the US position. However, he is in violation of multiple UN accords. Economic sanctions that would bring other countries to their knees can't work because he can continue to maintain his life style and power sneaking out OIL. If the UN is ever to be a force, it needs to add some bite to its bark. Time to go read the paper. Andy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
