My one little tiny problem with the Bush administration's approach to war.

cosmonut

I think Saddam Hussein is an evil man, AND I think that he has done horrible things to his people, AND I think that he needs to be removed from his position, AND I think that this war is justified in doing that...



HOWEVER, the fact that Bush is saying that we're going to war to protect American's just doesn't sit well with me. I really don't think Saddam Hussein is stupid enough to do anything to threaten the U.S. He knows he about got bitch-slapped off the planet in Desert Storm, so he's not going to do anythig rash (if we don't provoke him).



President Bush, let's be honest: Saddam really isn't that large of a threat to America or its interests (even oil). I'm fine with going to war, but let's admit that it's to wipe that jackass off the planet and free up thousands from his nasty regime.



Now, it seems to me that what we're doing is kind of a Minority Report effect (if you haven't seen the movie, I'll put it this way): Because we say that he's a threat, we go to war to eliminate him. Because we attacked him, he then becomes a threat to us, causing us to be justified in eliminating him.



Everybody follow?

shawnpatrickjoyce

The only good reason for war is to prevent future humanitarian abuses by Saddam's regime. I don't know if the costs of going to war to prevent that outweigh the benefits. But I know that we are going to war, so we must hold Bush accountable to every one of his comments justifying the use of force because of humanitarian abuses. Leftists have been valiant and moral in claiming the pacifist highground. Now it's time to effect meaningful political change at home!

groverat

Is this thread redundant and an issue already being discussed in multiple threads?

Absolutely!