but, you still have it the wrong way round. if you are the one wanting action of the described sort, taking out saddam, as he's spelled, btw, then you are the one who needs to bring up facts that would support that and give it meaning, purpose and context. to give you a picture, as they apparently say more than a thousand words: if dubya were a used car salesman, one of the few jobs he might actually be able to accomplish with at least a modicum of success, i should imagine, and he were to make the claim that i should buy a tattered old lemon because it's actually a lambo (alternatively, feel free to insert your vehicle of choice) in disguise, he would have to be the one who proves that to me with facts and not fiction, and not the other way around. but, apart from that little technicality, i also wish you the best and most successful of days. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
[in reference to those in power having done a cost/benefit analysis] Because, imo, implicit in most cost/benefit analyses performed by politicians and those in power is that they are designed to compute a benefit to THEMSELVES, and a cost to OTHERS (i.e., you and I). The list of examples is near endless and outside this topic... What would I do about Iraq? Honestly, I can't say - I simply don't know what is true and what is not. Taking what Bush says at face value, his policy seems sound. But given the irrationality of what he describes, coupled with the obvious motives of various powerful parties and the litany of deceit and abuse apparent in every single other governmental endeavor, one may be skeptical that, for some reason, this time, we should trust them to tell the truth and to do what is best for the people.
Therein lies the quandary for us all. We have done so many things with ulterior motives. For once I'd like to see us operate in full good faith and without economic bias. While that may be an unreal expectation of the current times, we need to strive for it. Truth in statements and actions that is. While I agree that the Bush posture seems sound, I am thinking that we are not addressing enough of the long term NEW postures that also need to be taken. If we are going to stop this regime, how can we not address (simultaneously) some other terrorist interests. We also need to talk to some of the so-called friends and change things there too. Otherwise, I think most military-only actions in Iraq would in effect be a too small (very temporary) Band-Aid for the upcoming region surgery.