I think this is really dumb on a lot of counts. First, we have to take on Iraq immediately precisely because they do not yet have nukes, but may gain them if we wait. If Iraq had nukes, we sure as hell wouldn't be about to launch a conventional attack... in response they'd send one into NYC in a cargo container and where would we be then?
Second, Saddam is an imminent threat because he's a madman and hates us. He tried to assassinate Bush senior, he torched the Kuwaiti oil fields in hopes of creating a nuclear winter. I have no real doubt he'd nuke us as his dying act if he could. The Korean dictator mostly just wants to be left alone to oppress the Korean people.
Well, I certainly don't think it's dumb to want to know exactly why we are being told we MUST launch a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation, especially when we can't even muster up the courage to declare war. You argue that Iraq must be dealt with "precisely because they do not yet have nukes." In other words, they currently pose no threat. Following that logic, we should take out Mugabe in Zimbabwe for the same reason. He may one day decide to dabble in nuclear research, and if he can murder white farmers to take their land, who knows what else he may be capable of doing?
"If Iraq had nukes, we sure as hell wouldn't be about to launch a conventional attack... in response they'd send one into NYC in a cargo container and where would we be then?.....Saddam is an imminent threat because he's a madman and hates us."
If Iraq nuked one of our cities, we would respond in kind. Saddam may be evil, but he's not stupid. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist bent on sacrificing his life in a nuclear suicide bombing.
"He tried to assassinate Bush senior, he torched the Kuwaiti oil fields in hopes of creating a nuclear winter."
Much of this is speculation. Like I said, Saddam may be evil, but he isn't stupid. Do you honestly think that he really believed burning a few oil fields would create a nuclear winter? Burning the Kuwaiti oil fields was more a result of the attitude "If I can't have it, then you can't either."
"I have no real doubt he'd nuke us as his dying act if he could. The Korean dictator mostly just wants to be left alone to oppress the Korean people."
What evidence do you have of this? What act of aggression did Hussein carry out against the United States that convinces you he is an imminent threat? He invaded Kuwait because he wanted their oil. He had no reason to believe at the time that we would retaliate. Up until then, he was still considered an "ally" in our ongoing conflict with Iran. We even funded him and armed him through the CIA. Again, Hussein isn't suicidal. Iraq isn't even an Islamic fundamentalist nation. It is a secular society. He may cheer on terrorists in their jihad, but that doesn't mean he has a death wish.
I happen to think that I have raised some legitimate concerns. I apparently disagree with most people here on FR, but the questions I have raised are ones that have not been answered to my satisfaction. Sorry if that upsets you, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on those who are calling for yet another undeclared war.
To be honest, I never take anything our government says at face value. How can I believe them? They say we need to bomb Iraq for the good of the country. That's the same reasoning they give for everything else--higher taxes, gun control, more education spending, Campaign Finance Reform, etc. How anyone can simply accept what Washington says about national security when the same politicians have been disarming us and allowing illegal immigrants to overrun us puzzles me.