There's a big part of a current events topic I don't understand, yet it seems to be taken for granted.

Agreeing that they are bad guys, agreeing that they probably are creating WMD, as are the other nations in the world and that region, what has Iraq done that would warrant military action?

Not "what could they do?" There are many, many places which could do things and are not being threatened with military action.

If the answer is that there is vague evidence they may have had sympathy with people who have done us harm, or evidence which has not been revealed to the public, where does the military action stop? Do we then take on the Russians, or Chinese, or Iran, or French, many of whom have similar sympathies? Clearly not, but where and how do we draw the line?

Now, when I posited the "Bowser Doctrine" people hollered about the good old American principle of innocent until proven guilty. And that's a great principle. How would that principle apply here, if at all?

I personally think it's because Iraq has oil, and is vulnerable, not because it's any worse than many other places. However, they may have actually done something other than being bad guys around the house and in their own neighborhood that would justify US intervention. It doesn't come to mind.

Or, is it valid to do because we can, and they might do something? I dunno.

Arf