bagheera, I agree that there are other alternatives and know only that we have chosen the worst as it simmers in the cauldron of our ‘pre-emptive strike policy’.
The alternatives are not just "War" or "Keep Saddam". There are other alternatives. Using established international law, Saddam could be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. His crimes are no less than the Serb, Rwandan or Cambodian defendants now facing trial in international war crimes tribunals.
The particularities of the war with Iraq embrace within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. Since before the pyramids dictators have been disposed of using various methods including war. However this war with Iraq is enveloped within a policy of pre-emptive strikes which could include nuclear war against any country that is suspect. This is by far the worst method in which to rid a country of a despot such as Saddam and unquestionably follows the example set by Nazi Germany. The policy or the agenda has the potential for evil far beyond the horrors that Saddam has or could ever bring about. To condone the war with Iraq within context, as a consequence of the policy, is to embrace Nazism and goes against the guiding principle of international law.
"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
