|
Quite a tirade from both sides. To go back to the original thought, yes it is somewhat inconsistant that we posess the very weapons we were trying to prevent Iraq from obtaining. The key factor is that we are in the process of disposing of these weapons as opposed to stockpiling them.
As far as the war in Iraq, the United States and the United Nations(if it so chose) had every right to take action against Saddam and his regime. Iraq had signed a treaty to end the first Gulf War and had consitantly broken that agreement over a twelve year period. What pisses me off is that our current administration did not have the patience to take their case to the U.N. and use diplomacy to achieve its ends.
President Bush and his advisors chose to trump up issues like immediate threats, nuclear weapons and stong links to terrorism to propel us to war(sadly much of America actually believes that Saddam had somethng to do with 9/11). If they had shown patience and worked to create a coalition, I believe that the US and UK would not now be bearing the brunt of the costs, both human and financial, of this ill-advised war.
And to all liberals or Democrats (they are not one in the same) stop using the U.S. is the only country to use the bomb line. Any objective historian (even several respected Japanese historians) will defend Truman's choice to drop the bombs. The extreme loss of U.S. and Japanese lives if we proceeded with a land attack would have been devestating for both our countries and indeed the world. I am sure that if you asked, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and "W" Bush, all would agree with Truman's choice.
And yes, I am a Democrat.
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
|