War with Iraq: What?s the right thing to do? How should free people feel ? in our hearts, brains and guts ? about launching a pre-emptive strike?
Note that we are not ??starting a war'' with Iraq. That was begun by Saddam more than a decade ago. We won the first battle, but he has since been secretly violating the terms of surrender. Either we will allow him to become capable of inflicting horrendous casualties in our cities tomorrow ? or we must inflict and accept far fewer casualties in his cities today.
That's a Hobson's choice, which is no choice at all. We will now get on with it. We will not whip ourselves into jingoism, or become fascinated by our exercise of ultra-tech superpower or suppress our sadness at the pictures of Iraqi civilians Saddam will thrust into the line of fire as human shields.
But we should by no means feel guilty about doing our duty. War cannot be waged apologetically. ... We have ample reason to believe that Saddam's gangster government is an evil to be destroyed before it gains the power to destroy us.
It is futile to try to reason with passionate marchers ... Nor should we waste more precious time trying to beg or buy moral approval from France or Russia, their U.N. veto threats largely driven by economic interests in Saddam's continuance in power.
? St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press - March 10
The Bush administration appears determined to go to war in Iraq later this month under circumstances that could leave the United States and much of the rest of the world less secure, not more so. Artificial deadlines should not limit our government's efforts to build a genuine consensus for dealing with Iraq's illegal weapons programs. If war comes, it is in the United States' interests to go into battle, as it did 12 years ago, with the full support of a broad international coalition.
Yet the White House has made little effort to win support through logic or reason. Instead, it has attempted to bully traditional friends such as Germany and France ? and to bribe important Islamic allies such as Turkey. Either through inept diplomacy or contempt for the very concept of collective security, the administration risks shattering the alliances that bolstered us through the Cold War and during the first Persian Gulf War. To this point, U.S. and British representatives have found scarce Security Council support for an amended resolution that would give Iraq a March 17 deadline to comply fully with U.N. resolutions or face war. ...
Given the context, March 17 sounds less like a deadline than a launch date. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies. ... A pre-emptive attack could set a dangerous precedent. ...
? St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times - March 9
Discuss this story in our Discussion
E-mail this Story
a friendE-mail a message
to the editorRead our paper
on your PDAHave our Headlinese-mailed to you
Comments or questions?
For questions about the website contact the web master at Kenai Peninsula Online
For questions or comments about the news
Peninsula Clarion Editorial and Newsroom Content
Kenai, AK 99611
by Peninsula Clarion, a Division of Morris Communications
_uacct = "UA-2473069-1";
Peninsula Clarion ©2013. All Rights Reserved.