Negative Positive
Title: sad, sad rationalization
Review: I guess preemptive wars are OK after all. Never mind, that the author makes his case for Iraq which did NOT have any ties with Al Quaida (and was downright hostile towards it), did NOT possess any WMDs, and committed all those terrible crimes against humanity while it was allied to the US... The sad thing is that it was known before the invasion. At least if you opened your eyes. But the author justifies any attack on any country that MIGHT pose some danger in the far future. (Does the present warmongering against Iran pop in mind?)So far the consensus was that preemptive wars are NEVER justified. Never. To turn this around is very-very dangerous. Look at the most prominent example.After all, those pesky Poles were about to attack Germany, weren't they? Hitler had to protect his people.I hope there is a hell, and these people will contemplate their ways causing suffering and death all over the world while burning there for eternity.
Is the review positive or negative? 