Replies

What you are interested in doesn't matter when the forces of intervention are unleashed as events have proven (and are proving) over and over again. The state department and and various other foreign policy social engineers who believe in perpetual involvement will inevitably end up in the driver's seat. Nation-building (probably to forstall some sort of bloody civil war between the Shi'ites and the Kurds) would occur after an Iraq invasion whether you like or not. The end result (as it has been in the great democratic state of Kuwait) would be equally depressing for conservatives who now have the Middle East central planning hubris much like they did in 1991.

You may not believe the "bilge" about the Hussein not being a threat but there are many such potential threats in the world (Castro, Chavez in Venzuella, Arafat, Assad, China, terrorist groups operating in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan). If you are suggesting "taking out" all of these "threats," you will not like the end results of the chaos which will be unleashed.

The U.S. government doesn't do much well. I suggest we make its job simple: defending the borders of the U.S. and not try to police the world.

The end result (as it has been in the great democratic state of Kuwait) would be equally depressing for conservatives

Actually, the current state of affairs in Kuwait is preferable compared to its state in '91 as a vassal of Hussein's. It, and the money it generates , is far less threatening to us now. And we didnt have to police it, either. In and out.

None nearly as threatening; this contention is hardly arguable in the intelligence agencies; given this guy's previous actions (invasion, invasion, gassing,genocide,arbitrary terror,etc) Like I said, we shouldnt police the world, but this guy is a serious threat. We should go in and take care of him, and however the chips fall will be better than current situation. I understand your concerns about nation building, but it would be an egregious mistake to just sit here and wring hands. IMO