Replies to post #342 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Rayman]

Thank you Zeev. You have said exactly what I want to say.

I support War against terrorism. But it is the precedent of "justified preemptive military attack" that really is scary. Based on this doctrine, then what can prevent any other country to attack another country under this premise? Once Pandora's box is opened, it is very hard to close, and may drag the world into warring abyss.

Bush has wasted a lot of goodwill that the world has gave to the U.S. after 9/11. Now his incessant war rhetoric starts to run hollow, and push a lot of people to view it rather cynically at this is just another move to get the oil. Saddam should be removed, but by waging a war that will kill a lot of people(our soldiers and Iraq soldiers and civilians) just to get one guy? Does not make whole lot of sense.

What about the real daunting task of ridding terrorism from the world? There is a real danger that a marginally-justifiable war against Iraq will further incite terrorist activities against the US because we can see that rest of the world, including our allies, view this war with suspicion.

Bush's foreign policy can be euphemistically called "cowboy style" or sheer "jackass tactics". What he should do actually demands a great deal of patience, meticulous strategy and planning, and superb statemanship to foster strong global support, alliance and intelligence gathering to fight terrorism. Because terrorism can not be cleared by dropping a million bombs, but rather, it might take years of hardwork to make the world a safer place.

I remember Sun Tzu's most important military doctrine is "A battle in the field is not the best way to defeat an enemy". Similarly, I think Teddy Roosevelt's "speaking softly but carrying a big stick" is more effective.

U.S. used to lead the world on high moral ground, even in the event of a pending war. But this time, we can not say with 100 percent moral justification that Iraq should be attacked before we are presented with convincing evidence that it is a immidiete threat to the free world.

[Koikaze]

Thanks, Zeev. I read your reasoning on the long-term dangers of invading Iraq some weeks ago. I agree with you. I think your point of view is wise ... and more rational than my own.

Fred