Quote:
Originally posted by jeffe'd:
Twig and CWU Girl:

You have provided well reasoned reply's to my post except you really didn't answer the question, what do we do next enlight Iraq's continued non-compliance. I have heard estimates as high as 50,000 Iraqi's will die of starvation per year without food aids. The UN and others have tried to deal with this issue by providing food and Saddham takes the food/aid for his own benefit. While the Bush administrations references to Iraqi links to Alchaida are not backed up by a full fledged documentation of proof, Ari Fliesher today reiterated in his press conference today of Iraqi aid to terrorists when asked that direct question.

It is clear that the strategy of the US Government post 9-11 has changed to pre-emption. The minimum level of evidence to justify military action is debatable (remember Bush did get approval from Congress post 9-11 to use force against Iraq if Saddham didn't disarm), but I will error on the side of protecting the United States against aggressors (who directly attack us or our ally's or can support financially or provide arms to terrorists).

What I don't agree with Bush on is his stead fast drive for tax cutts given the cost of the war and the expanding deficit.
The sad thing is that the Bush administration continues to act as though it is the French that have divided the U.N.. If that were true, then wouldn't we have more support than the Brittish, Israel, and Spain? Instead, we can't muster any support. It looks like it is the U.S. that has divided the U.N..

I don't argue that Saddam isn't a threat but the question is how and when we go about millitary action. Why not set some hard, realistic dates and then pursure millitary action if they are not met? Why not involve the rest of the world, or at least some part of? If the threat is as big as the Bush administration make it out to be don't you think other countries would be wanting to take him out?

In the begining of all of this, Bush wasn't going to seek and U.N. approval but later caved when he saw the politics starting to unravel. Now, after months of debate, he's going back on his original policy of "screw the U.N.", the very policy that Bush says he's trying to uphold...go figure.

If the world of pre-emptive strikes takes hold, look for bombs dropping out of nowhere on the U.S.. Korea has already stated that the U.S. isn't the only country who gets to play that game.