In a message dated 3/31/03 7:13:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? > In which case it seems to me that your argument is > that we should wait until _after_ New York is > destroyed to do something.� As a New Yorker, I > disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if > that's your position.� But I doubt that it is.� So do > you really oppose pre-emptive war?� Or _this_ > pre-emptive war? > But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching war. We _weren't_ doing nothing. You can argue that the inspections were or were not working, but they were _something_. Were they enough? We'll never know now. My feeling was, Saddam is a terrible person and almost certainly was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He needed to be stopped and gotten rid of. But I was not convinced we needed to launch a war _now_. I think the inspections should have been given more time while the US bolstered its case and brought more allies on-board. It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. But if the USA wants to be the leader of the world, sometimes it has to do things the hard way. Sometimes it has to be the adult, and must always be cognizant of others' attitudes and ideas, even if it doesn't agree with them. In general, I'm anti-war. I don't see how anyone can be anything else. In some particular cases, I may be in favor of a particular war. In this case, I'm still not convinced that this was the only way to go or that this was the time to go this way. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
