Replies

"The President's arguments, dependent as they were on intelligence and its analysis, could have been mistaken, but if it is to be assumed that he believed them to be true, they did justify the use of force against the Iraqi regime."

IMHO This is the central statement upon which all else hinges.I know the moonbat left sees all sorts of conspiracies and ulterior motives but to me that belies the debate we ought to be having- do we really have the inherent authority to act unilaterally and preemptively? Maybe I'm just 'old school', a Taft/Goldwater republican in a post 911 age.

I think the President acted in good faith, and as he saw his duty to be, on the best available intelligence. But the concept that we can just go in and take out anyone we consider a 'bad guy' on the basis of what they *might* do is one I am not comfortable with. Doesn;t mean I cry for terrorists or don't think we should be preparing for a major piss-up with China but I don't know that I want to see any country have a world empire, even if it's us.

But the concept that we can just go in and take out anyone we consider a 'bad guy' on the basis of what they *might* do is one I am not comfortable with.

Are you more comfortable with allowing them to kill thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans first?

I think the USA putting a stamp on the ME was necessary. Either now, or in 10 years when more nuclear powers sprung up.

If Afghanistan and Iraq can continue progress, there will be at a minimum two muslim countries that actively fight terrorists, as opposed to coddle them. Hell, even Saudi Arabia is purging Al Quaeda types, and the future of Lebannon and Libya has already improved due to the Iraq invasion.