Replies

No, the point of the question is correct: we are choosing our enemies based upon their negatively correlated ability to strike back, with little, if any, reference to morality or even the interests of the US.

America had nukes in the early 40's and by 45 they had been deployed to devasting effect.

The Soviets did not not even detonate their first nuke until 1949. They fit your description of "inability to strike back" in the interim and for some time afterward yet we didn't strike.

Saddam Hussein is an irrational whackjob currently in possession of CB weapons and on the verge of Nuclear devices. He pays bounty to terrorists, his nation is on everybodys top ten terrorist list and this nation has been under attack by the radical Islamists since Jimmy Carter failed to act in 1980 with ever increasingly violent attacks culminating in September 11, 2001.

Hussein is just another skell in a long line of skells that needs to be dealt with now because the foothold that the radical Islamists and Arabists have established is a clear and present danger to America in general and my grandkids in particular.

Bush recognises the immensity of the situation, you and Ron Paul don't.

Thankfully, President Bush has the brains to recognise it and the balls to do something about it before it hits terminal velocity.

Your history is correct, except that we didn't have nukes in the early '40s. And, if by "situation" you mean Saddam's being a bona fide threat to the U.S., you are again correct: I do not recognize any immensity of the situation. Just repeating over and over canards about "verge of nuclear devices" does not make it so. Keep shouting, Mr. Goebbels. It has been working. But you had better shout louder: it is working with less and less Americans.

Dr. Paul has some valid questions and Hornberger has some pretty fair answers... having said that, I still think MY solution would be the preferred one, in that it would be the least expensive to implement, it would NOT infringe on Iraqi sovereignty the way an invasion would and it will not be detrimental to our liberties at home... and it would have the side benefit of discouraging others from following in Saddam's footsteps...