Protecting civilians in Israel and Kuwait
OK, I admit that I am totally against attacking Iraq without UN participation.
There is another side to this issue that I had ignored before today: I had lunch today with a Jewish friend; he did not mention it specifically, but later I started thinking of the danger that Saddam poses to civilian populations in surrounding countries, especially Israel. Specifically, I think that although Iraq poses close to zero threat to Americans, Saddam does pose a threat to at least the populations of Kuwait and Israel.
To me, the solution seems clear: use our proven anti-missile technology to help insure that Iraq is powerless to launch against its neighbors. Then, except for making a lot of money for the International oil companies (who, by the way, don't pay many U.S. taxes), there is no reason to quickly and unilaterally attack Iraq. Let the UN do its thing, even if this process takes a while.
The U.S. should only go to war to protect its own citizens or if we are attacked.
Recently, someone tried to make a different argument for unilatrerally attacking Iraq: to "support our troups". This frankly irritated me. Like just about everyone else, I support the physical welfare and safey, training, education, and economic security of our troups. Last year, in this very blog, I was arguing for increasing wages for U.S. soldiers (especially enlisted personel with families). Nuff said....
2:14:09 PM 
|
|
