Whose post did you read?
What I said was that the only aspect of going to war that I would consider positive would be to fight terrorism. The administration is linking Saddam to terrorism, and believe that taking him out will help protect us. But you know what: we don't need to do anything within Iraq, because terrorism isn't coming from Iraq.
As for the weapons of mass destruction... none have been found, and I doubt any will be. I definitely don't believe in slaughtering civilians on the basis of a suspicion.
"As to you believing that if US be all positive and do "everything right" it can't fail..."
I said this? I said that much more good can be done with positive action than with bombings. Don't misquote me.
" I know its hard and painful to wake up to that realization. I've been through this process. You will too (actually you should already have on 9/11 - but maybe you think you didn't try hard enough to be holy)"
Wow, condescension from the right. Imagine that. Well, I'm an atheist, so I'm not exactly worried about being "holy". And I'm also a realist, so "waking up" probably won't happen. In fact, I could argue that 9/11 woke me up to the fact that there can be severe consequences to foreign policies that lack compassion for people. I understand based on historical precedent that there are consequences to war, and that innocent people (including children) die in the explosions.
My point isn't that we can defeat Iraq through inaction, but that if the ultimate goal is to make our people safer, then what we're about to do is counterproductive.
|