In today's Wall Street Journal, the former head of Saddam's weapons program Khidhir Kamza speaks out. His words should frighten free people everywhere.
Amy not long ago asked how Saddam was a threat to the United States. Take this man, give him nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons that he's already proven he'll use, and imagine him in charge of the entire Middle East. What do you suppose he'll do with the kind of money and power that controlling 2/3rds of the world oil supply would give him. Is pre-emption always wrong for libertarians?
And how much evidence must we have before we believe that the chances of his funding groups like Al Qaeda are high? Especially given that we already know he funds other terrorist groups--indeed, brags about it?
We learned from past postings the megalomaniacal ego Saddam Hussein possesses. He actually sees himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. Defying and humiliating the United States remains his top priority.
We will find all the evidence necessary to justify an invasion of Iraq following our invasion. We will even discover evidence that Saddam Hussein actively supported terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda. There is no doubt whatsoever this man intends to use his weapons of mass destruction to attack America and Finlandize his neighbors. He is ruthless and amoral to the core. Hussein’s removal will deny terrorists one more terrorist-sponsoring nation
Thanks for the link. Whether or not there are other – darker – reasons for France and Germany to oppose Saddam’s deposal, it is becoming clearer and clearer that money is a large part of the reason.
Dean, a libertarian cannot sanction war except when it is in the pursuit of self defense. The crux of the argument is therefore self defense and not preemption. Of course there could be a debate whether or not one could preemptively defend oneself. There are those who do not believe that, if the snake is about to strike, one is allowed to shoot him. Many libertarians believe that we must wait for a container nuke to detonate in one of our harbors before we launch a counter attack, and only then when we have definitive proof of the source of the attack, so as not to inadvertently harm the (technically) innocent.
Me, I'll go along with the Green Beret doctrine: When one is under attack, "Kill 'em all; let God sort 'em out."