I see. So the mugger that draws a knife in the back alley, you are not justified in shooting him in the head until he actually stabs you. Logic is lacking here - if you are threatened by someone, you deal with the threat, rather than bleat and whinge and moan about rules of engagement.
If the soldiers and those upholding their efforts who act in our name are to do something, if "pre-emption" is the order of the day, why isn't Musharraf being forced to give up his nukes? As was done with the former Soviet republics?
Fallacy. So long as Musharraf remains relatively secure and on side in the War on Terror, there is no dire urgency associated with taking his nukes. In any event, you are falling into the tired, old leftist trap saying: "Just because we don't remove Musharraf's nukes, we cannot remove Saddam." The two scenarios are not connected in any way, shape or form, except as an elaborate self-justification for the perpetuation of cowardice.
Troops in place ready to fire on neighbors, proven nukes, stability constantly threatened (no Republican Guard!), hinterlands filled with outlaw terrorists ... and we're to dismiss someone like Musharraf as being a threat.
Musharraf has co-operated with the West in the War on Terror. Your attempt to suggest that he is in the same league as Saddam Hussein is absurd. You merely display your disassocation from the facts in order to further your political point of view, which is, "no matter what, no war is justified".
Your fallacy is in equating anyone who disagrees with your particular war aims with someone who wants to "not deal with threats," period. As I said, there's both intelligent and stupid Empire-building. If we're in the thick of it already, I'd rather, say, that we (and the Indians) take out Musharraf and defuse that time-bomb. He's got the troops in the field with guns loaded, the nukes warm and ready to mount, the populace he rules outraged and restless. Real threats, to a broader peace, not those from a tinhorn murderous despot who, however savage, has been kept in his cage.
What did Musharaff do precisely to threaten America and Britain? I can answer that - nothing. Hussein on the other hand has engaged in absurd activities such as trying to assassinate former President Bush, an act of war on its own. "Kept in his cage" indeed. If that's your definition of "kept in a cage", one can only wonder at the mindless anarchy that you would define as being its opposite.
Does all that make me a pacifist against all sense? No. It makes me someone who is skeptical about the war aims toward Iraq as even attempting to solve the real problems. That, though, to you, clearly borders on treason, to not share your war aims and estimations of proper strategy. If you don't mind (or even if you do), I'll join a slowly awakening American public and demur from that.
You sound like the French and Al Gore. Taking out a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is necessary. Now, we are in a pre-war situation, so I merely regard you as a coward and a charlatan at this point. When the bullets do start flying and you try to undermine morale at home, then indeed, the epithet traitor will apply.
Ivan
You're clearly under the impression that asserting cowardice substitutes for argument. And are fond of making false analogies -- upholding individual self-defense, with the weapons that you Brits have blithely given up, does not scale effortlessly into justifying continent-wide movements of armies.
I won't give you any more of the benefit of the doubt. You want intimidation, not discussion. Sounds like one of those football-yob pug-dog thugs, to me. "With you to the last"? Between your type and Blairian poodles, I doubt you're worth the rhetorical Purina Dog Chow.