Bush decided to invade Iraq because American intelligence assigned a high probability to the chance that Saddam possessed either chemical or biological weapons. However, he presented this guesstimate as fact. That was, of course, a lie. There also lurked the uncomfortable feeling that Saddam looked on America as his enemy.
But most Arab nations look on America as the enemy. There are even non- Arab nations who view America as a threatening presence. At least two of them have weapons systems we would rather not fall in the hands of groups that have no fear of reprisal. None of that mattered. The cabal of neocons had plans for Iraq'a invasion long before 9/11, the tragedy Bush callously used as an excuse for invasion. He decided to forego the concept of just war so thoughtfully presented by St. Augustine, a tenet of Christian philosophy for a millenium and a half. He decided to forget about diplomacy, prudence, or patience. His dictum - an enemy with the possibility (no matter how remote) of attacking the U.S. is to be dealt with severely. Among the options of the Bush doctrine is nuclear first-strike, drastic reversal of U.S. policy and international treaty since the Cold War. Thus a second-rate mind has rewritten both international agreement and basic Christian philosophy.
My question is this - Should Pakistan nuke India, upon which leg shall the Bush backers stand as they howl their condemnation