Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
12.20.00 - Mark
I think its pretty clear to readers that I don't like the idea of war.
Thats not to say I won't support our troops and all that jazz, but I'd rather it not be necessary. That said This is really rubbing me the wrong way. This nation has a lot of certified Big Friggin' Guns at its disposal should diplomacy fail, or when the latter isn't given much of a chance to run its course. I think a large part of the population is starting to realize that the preemptive strikes Bush Jr. launched several years ago are failing. Miserably. So how come the government is drafting policy that will enable us to go from peaceful talks to pieces of radioactive debris flying about our atmosphere in the course of hours?
I think that our non-nuclear arsenal is more than enough to let us blow off everything below our beer bellies, and while I'm still not exactly thrilled about one man (George W or any other) being able to launch a preemptive strike, thats one of a few measures I'll come close to supporting in the name of "national security".
As a side node, during the cold war only two nations had the ability to really carry out a preemptive strike - the USSR and ourselves. Both nations wanted to stick around so we fell onto MAD. Supposedly we want to maintain the ability to launch "preemptive strikes" to protect ourselves. When our enemy is hundreds, thousands of small cells of up to a dozen people many of whom are more than open to the idea of suicide, how is a strong offense going to help us? I'm thinking that our ability to conduct a preemptive strike is only going to cement the view of the United States as a global bully. How about a nice solid defense - like the one experts have been calling for since at least 9/11/01?