|
As an aside to start, I was using the US economic link to Israel (before was a typo, anything intentional will be (sic)'ed, whoops) as illustrative of my opinion that whether or not someone supports a Jewish state in the area, it has to be seen that Israel existing certainly has economic benefits for the US, and any other view doesn't fly (IMO).
I have no problem with Israel as an entity - I look at it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the US, whereby both benefit in different ways. The US keeps a presence in the area, and Israel gets more support (not to mention F-14s).
Anyway . . . back to Iraq:
Any sort of formal declaration of war would be bizarre, to me - hard to justify a war against a nation which hasn't been aggressive toward you directly. W/out that, international law is pretty clear - and whether or not it is followed generally, there at least exists some sort of honor requirement to follow agreements we made.
Toppling Hussein is a great theory; however, diplomatic backlash could be a bitch (not that US foreign policy has ever really been deeply rooted in caring for others' opinions). I don't see it as the cure-all that Rudey does, as I have doubts about the long-term stability of any US-propped government installed (see: nearly every other time it's been done). However, your thought process makes sense to me, so I could see it going either way.
I think the concept of heightened US involvement in Iraq is more attractive than most of the potential outcomes - however, if what Rudey says about Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities is correct (cite?), than there enters a higher level of necessity for somebody to do something. Whether that "somebody" in the cliche is the US government, well that's the argument - and I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit quite yet . . . so convince me I guess.
|