Replies

The problem with your analysis is that this "dog" is going to bite, anyway. If not directly, he will assist Al-Quaeda in delivering a nuke or gas or chemicals. We need to get rid of him, asap.

I understand your thinking... and I'm not saying that I disagree with it. But I'm not sure it's right. We all know that he has chemical and biological weapons right now, and has had for sometime now. Yet it appears they have not been used by Al Quaeda against us... yet.

The more I think about this the more I think a nice carefully planned arkancide is the best way of taking care of Saddam.

If and when we send in the troops to flatten the place and take him out.... I don't know..... I think we better be on full alert. A declared war... and we better not be worried about a bunch of P.C. garbage.

The problem with an "arkanacide" is two fold: if it is done quietly, then one of his sons merely fills in, nothing changes. Second, though, we don't want just him gone---we want the "regime" changed, and publically, so that there is no question who did this and why.

Now, the problem with a declaration of war in modern times is that it just won't happen. We did not get a declaration of war against Nazi Germany even after they sank a couple of our ships and killed some of our sailors; ditto WW I. National security interests dictate that you do not wait until the other guy---who cleverly waits until he has everything in place---slaughters you. Br. did not, if I recall, declare war on Argentina; we did not declare war on Korea.

I know it is frustrating, and now what you want (nor I), but the world anymore hates terms like "war" and will not sanction them in anything short of a full scale invasion of the U.S. Meanwhile, we leave ourselves open to more 9/11s.

As for Saddam, the evidence is in and growing that 1) he has the weapons, and if not nukes, soon; 2) he is already harboring the Al-quaeda, making him no different than the taliban; and 3) there is evidence enough to connect him tangentially to 9/11.