>
> I think this is a slim point; are you saying that if there
> was some proof that "he" (meaning the former state of Iraq
> as personified by their leader) did sponsor/harbor "terrorist
> attacks" then you'd be okay with regime change as a policy
> choice by the US?
Do you mean, if it were clearly (i.e. un-fraudulently) proven that "Saddam" (as you note, "tfsoIapbtl") were directly responsible for nine-eleven, would I have supported dismembering that regime? Yes indeed!
Of course the fact that national capitals make such soft, easy targets in this post-Oppenheimer-&-Fuchs age is probably the main reason why national governments, even ugly ones like Saddam's, do not commit international atrocities like nine-eleven. At least not against target nations as heavily armed as the U.S.A. is. But reckless rulers have occasionally done crazier things in history, and if they had...
> My original point was: are you okay with "takin' 'em out" in
> just the cases where you agree that there's a threat involved
> (and if so, do you get your intel briefings from NBC?)?
Well, of course not, "threats"? Kim Il Jong, for example, loudly threatens the U.S.A. on a weekly basis. We threaten him back. This process is known as "diplomacy," and so long as it is confined to only words, I see no justification for inflicting real war, real mass death, on innocent populations.
> Or even worse, just in the cases where the US _could have but
> didn't and thus looks bad_ ...?
It almost sounds as if you're accusing me of basely picking-and-choosing justifications for warfare to serve a hidden purpose. I want to assure you that I'd have been equally as satisfied to see the generally odious GWB destroy an avowed Al Qaida operative and his camp, as I am disappointed - no, outraged - that he did not do so when he had an opportunity.
(...that's my three for today, said my bit and down I sit.)
Yours WDK - WKiernan at ij.net