Henry L,

While I am confident that you quoted your source accurately, apparently your source was not accurate, based upon Spin's source, obviously credible, as well as what Kevin B posted:

"and the hits keep on coming. Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs web page"


"If Iraqis could develop nuclear weapons with French help, how hard could it be to develop bio/chemical weapons on their own or via another European power?"

(Not to mention the generous supply of ingrediants and technology supplied courtesy of Ronny Raygun and Big Enus, right?)

Henry and Arlow,

The strategic advantages of invading and occupying Iraq in preparation for an anticipated conflict with Iran cannot be denied. I honestly had never considered that before. However, I am still not sure how I feel about that from a moral standpoint. Is that proper justification, and do we have the moral authority, to act in a first strike capacity against another nation, merely because it is strategically advantageous for some potential future military action which itself is yet uncertain? We are the U.S., we cannot measure our tactics by those of our enemies; we have to be better than them in every way. This is certainly a difficult quandry.

I think on the whole I am reluctant to embrace Mr. Bush's rush to military action where either Iraq or Iran are concerned, given the present situation and that of 2 years ago when we first went into Iraq. Again, not to say they are not clearly our enemies, but I do not see that military action was inevitable or unavoidable and still feel that going to war with Iraq at that particular time was at the very least premature.

Waging war should never be taken lightly, or undertaken just because it is easier, faster, or strategically advantageous in anticipation of some future conflict, no matter how much any of us may want to "cut to the chase"; no matter how certain we may be that other means (diplomacy, containment, economic pressure, international pressure, etc.) are destined to fail. I think we are obliged to wait until after they have indeed failed, or until the other nation has in some overt manner provoked us. When you're the biggest kid on the playground, you don't go around beating up on those smaller than you, just because they look at you wrong, or verbally harass you or threaten you; you watch them closely, you never turn your back on them, but you wait for something stronger in the way of provocation. Afghanistan was totally legitimate in light of 9/11. I do not believe Iraq, or Iran, meet that same test.

Again, I am not suggesting this is easy, or clear cut, or that I am an expert on foreign affairs. I can only rely on my own personal moral compass. This is what my sense of values tells me is right. War is truly tragic and horrific, and I think we must do more to avoid resorting to it whenever possible. I'm not a "pacifist" or a "global appeaser", just adverse to the death and destruction brought about by war. And again, I am not convinced that any of this has made us safer today, or will make us safer in the long run.

I disagree with your assessment, Henry, that Hussein's actions were tantamount to a declaration of war. Those actions went back over a decade, why go to war now, when we had not done so previously, when those actions were ripe? And again 9/11 clearly does not meet that test.

And as you admit, Italy was a different dynamic, not only because they had made a formal declaration of war against us, but because Germany had likewise done so, and Italy was Germany's ally, therefore, they were fair game. If we were at war with Iran, and Iraq was their ally, then that certainly would change things, but that is not the case. If Iraq came to Afghanistan's aid when we went in there, that would have changed things also. But the way it all shook out, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for us to start a war without something more solid to go on.

I realize this sounds weak, but again, war is far too drastic to resort too without absolute certainty of its justification, and I for one am not certain. What if it could have been avoided? How would you or I feel if we lost a loved one serving in a conflict that might have been avoided? How can I look the family of a fallen soldier in the eye and be certain that their sacrifice was absolutely necessary and unavoidable? I truly do not believe in my heart that this conflict passes that moral test.

This is not a clear cut case from any angle. It is truly one of the most complex and difficult issues our generation may ever have to struggle with.

Respectfully,

Jim