I generally avoid these political threads as they seem even more pointless than our fish management squabbles. However, I'll make this exception because of a comment I recently heard that I believe offers some food for thought.

I'm not sorry at all that Saddam has been removed as head of Iraq. But I was bothered by the pretext (WMD & imminent threat that didn't exist) and the execution of a pre-emptive strike. I was thinking that since pre-emptive strikes are now official US policy, we shouldn't be bothered if another country, believing itself threatened by the US, decides to launch a pre-emptive strike against us. Just about that time, someone pointed out that those who think our pre-emptive strike in Iraq was OK shouldn't be bothered a bit by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Hmmm, what's good for the goose is good for the gander . . . ?

A smaller scale follow up to this regards the status of the prisoners at Quantanimo - no rights nor access to legal representation, etc. I read that a group of retired military officers filed a friend of the court brief. The basis of their brief is that if the US doesn't abide by the Geneva convention, captured US forces will be redefined in future conflicts as not being prisoners of war, but rather as "foreign combatants."

These are but a few actions that seem like a strange way to make the world a better place.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.