I thought I had been pretty reserved in claims for the invulnerability of my argument to criticism, and clear about my own ambivalence, especially compared to those on the other side, present company excepted.
> And a lot of overheated rhetoric about saving the world . . .
Not from me. Aversion to the prospective killing of lots of innocent people is the core of the issue. Would you prefer the use of euphemisms?
> , or a part of it, from some new Little Hitler doesn't help
clarify the situation at all. I remember when Saddam was Hitler
for a day, but it's clear the U.S. didn't want to depose him,
only shorten his leash a bit. And if it took killing hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis - far more than today's Hitler for a day has
killed, by the way - then it's a price worth paying, as the vile
Albright has said. Right?>
As you say, and as Chomsky said better, the best argument against the policy is its source. Problem is there is no alternative, plausible source.
mbs