Nest of Liberals

Ever'buddy in the office is getting geared up for the anti-war demonstration on Saturday. Am I against war? Absolutely I'm against war. Am I for removing Saddam "Clear and Present Danger" Hussein from power? Yeah. I'm for that. Heard on CNN this moring: "It's recommended that you have in your home a three day supply of food and water, as well as an ample supply of Saran wrap and duct tape." I think the supply of Saran Wrap and duct tape I have on hand for mummification should be sufficient to cover my windows.

And, this morning I had to field a cranky community activist who is against against against the Bloomberg administration's plans for the redevelopment of the West Side of Manhattan and the Hudson Yards. "Yes. Absolutely. Terrible." His position, if you could call it that, was essentially, "I want my neighborhood to stay just the way it is." Uh huh. The only city that I'm aware of that has managed to hold back development and evolution is Pompeii.

Puh-leeeze let me hear one credible, informed, reasoned argument against sending in troops to take out Saddam. Actually, I can think of one. Namely, having armaments does not necessarily imply that those armaments will be used. The Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. is testament to that. Only when it seems likely that the other guy is far ahead of you and so you have nothing to lose. By the same token, when it is absolutely clear that the other guy is about to attack you and will not be diissuaded from that, then what the hell, you use your weaponry. So, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq could actually prompt Saddam to use the weapons that he does have. Folks within the Bush administration have countered that thinking that way is to imply that Saddam's actions are rational. But, in fact, rationality has nothing to do with it. It's behavior that is displayed by two dogs in a fight. And, the fact that he has used weapons against his own people (who were unable to defend themselves and unlikely to spur attack by a foreign power) and Kuwait (Saddam gambled--incorrectly--that no one would care if he invaded Kuwait) does not indicate that he's delusional to the point of imagining that the U.S. or Israel or martians are going to attack him when that's not the case and so he's about to fire his missiles.

So why don't I find that argument convincing? Well, I do find it convincing. But, although Saddam may be able to retaliate, I am hopeful that technology and timing could prevent his retaliatory actions from amounting to much. (Not much comfort if you're living in Tel Aviv, granted.) Also, I think the outcome has benefits (the establishment of a democratic, free-market oriented government in the middle east would be a great thing for world peace and further disempower Al Quaeda) that outweigh these potential risks. And sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.