Replies

Initial thought, and I'm going back and reading again, is that as a leader, Hussein has shown the willingness to initiate hostilities against others to gain political and economic advantage for bith himself, and his country.

It seems that the author is making the argument that far from being a madman, Saddam is actually a shrewd, calculating leader.

In that sense, the argument that the Bush administration is wrong in initiating a pre-emptive war against Saddam, runs in contrast with the general idea behind the article, because the one fact emerging about Bush, is that he is a shrewd, and calculating leader who is willing to take a hard-line in order to achieve great gains.

Defeating Hussein, and the inevitable occupation of post-war Iraq, will give the US a solid base of operations in the Middle East, one that at this time it does not have. It will allow the staging of troops for any and all future military activity in the war against terror without having to "ask" our ME "allies", as well as the ability to detain and interrogate detainees under more loosely structured circumstances than are available State side.

But then again, what the hell do I know?