Jenny wrote: > A couple more thoughts: > I think the humanitarian argument for initiating a war doesn't fly because it is selective. If we were driven by this, >then we would intervene far more often in the world than we do.
It's a matter of numbers and resources - more people and countries, including the U.S,. are in direct immediate danger from Saddam at this time. If he can be stopped, it is ultimately a humanitarian "win" and may possibly make other despots around the world think twice. > And frankly, when it was to our perceived benefit to support Saddam against Iran, we took them off the list of >countries who supported terrorists and began helping to build them economically and militarily. That was back when Iran was attacking U.S. citizens and avowing itself as an enemy of the U.S.. Not to say it wasn't completely boneheaded to have been so quick to support Saddam. I think the reasoning at the time was to let both of them focus on each other rather than other countries. I've seen this question and heard it answered that the U.S. was also an ally of Stalin in WWII but then that all changed very quickly after that war as we all know. > And the argument that a regime change is necessary for the safety of Americans...I'm still waiting for someone to >explain how launching an attack will make us safer? I'm still waiting for someone to explain how not trying to stop him will make us safer. If we don't do anything and are attacked in the U.S. with anthrax and smallpox and dirty nukes, which they probably already have in place here, then what do we say? I know a lot of people will say it's all Bush's fault, either way. That will make some people happy because they can feel they were right all along but what a pyrrhic victory for them. What suggestions do you have to stop the threat? I don't mean that facetiously but it seems no one has any better ideas. >Has our intervention and involvement in the middle east *ever* made us safer? Yes, for years we've stopped a lot of terrorist groups in the mid-east from attacking us more than they would have if we had just let them go unchecked. However, a lot of our interventions and how they stopped us from harm will never be detailed on TV or universally disseminated. I know this for a fact, and I know that many people in the U.S. who have worked in the government or military also know this for a fact, but are constrained from giving out the details to the public. I'd like to give my own personal knowledge of such instances but I think classified security clearances are in effect forever. >CIA director George Tenet has said >an attack may provoke Saddam to use biological and chemical weapons and >convince him to begin in earnest to >support terrorist attacks against americans. Has George Tenet presented us with a better alternative plan? I haven't seen any, other than to not do anything. With all this said, I would still like more details released to the public as to why Saddam is an imminent threat. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both gave interviews on TV back in September stating unequivocally that there is hard evidence linking Iraq and Saddam with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am surprised that more people did not notice this but a lot gets lost in the news coverage. I'd like to hear more about the direct evidence to help myself and others understand the threat better. Although, it's not much of a stretch for me for me to think they are involved with each other. I think we are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is hope that Saddam agrees with the UN resolution and agrees to the start complying again with the UN rules in his country. Kakki
