I was encouraged by the title of the original article, but disappointed by the author's approach.
The title suggests, correctly, that the burden is on the anti-war advocates to make a strong case against removing Saddam.
It is accepted practice since time immemorial that a people can act to defend itself against an attacking enemy. Our President, using the best intelligence, has identified Saddam Hussein as a key element of enemy forces, which quite obviously transcend national borders and hold illegitimate grasp upon the resources of a number of sovereign states.
I'm a little confused, Burkeman1. Is it that we don't really have a right to defend ourselves, or is it that YOU PLACE MORE TRUST IN SADDAM HUSSEIN THAN GW BUSH regarding Saddam's complicity? Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the kings and be satisfied with executioners like bin laden?
I find it interesting that pacifists and leftists are searching all over America for 'root causes', yet somehow the idea that the chain of cause and effect goes through Saddam's neighborhood is ludicrous beyond belief.
In the end it doesn't really matter if we have a 'right' to defend ourselves under 'international law'. The UN, its charter, and all its resolutions are a fat joke without US strength. The UN is a convenience and a mechanism for self-delusion permitted by Pax Americana.
When push comes to shove, national interest and power relations prevail as they always have. If taking down Saddam is required in the national interest, regardless of ironclad 'proof' we will do it.
I systematically pointed out why each reason being floated is false and how our "allies" are more responsible than even Iraq. When a nation goes to war it is the ones calling for war who have the resposibility to say why our sons and fathers should die. This administration has not.