ok, some people have asked what i think about america’s seemingly impending attack against iraq.
well, to be honest with you i don’t know what to think.
based on his history as the leader of iraq, it is safe to say that saddam hussein is a bad man. he has killed millions of people (even his own) without any apparent ethical concerns. so it’s safe to say that a world in which saddam hussein were behind bars would probably be better than a world wherein saddam is the leader of a gigantic, dangerous country.
but i don’t know about america attacking iraq…almost all of our allies seem to virulently oppose the idea of america invading iraq. and i always get nervous when oil-men (bush and cheney) talk about aggressive foreign policy that involves oil-producing nations. and i get nervous about george w’s sabre rattling against iraq given theembarrassment (speaking of embarrassment, when will i learn to spell?) that the bush family feels about not ousting saddam the first time around.
and i get very nervous whenever politicians talk about war around election time.
but if it’s true that the iraqi’s are developing nuclear weapons, then i don’t really see how the democratic world can sit around and do nothing. because saddam hussein has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, which leads one to think that he wouldn’t hesitate to use them in the future.
so, to answer your question, i have no idea.
it is my sincere hope that our political leaders somehow end up making rational and informed decisions that are not tainted by subjective historical precedent, electoral expediency, or the influence of special interests.
that’s my hope. it’s a very complicated situation, though, isn’t it.
moby