Tampa Bay vs. Iraq

1/28/03 @ 11:28 PM

I'm amazed none of the Warbloggers have picked up on this piece.  Michael makes an interesting Libertarian/Republican argument against going to war with Saddam.  I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but it is nice to see something besides bleeding hearts and renegades. 

I'm unsure about this view because I think liberating the people of these nations is just one of a number of possible reasons for attacking.  One such reason being defense.  Yes, defense.  I'm not saying we should definitely attack Iraq, because I'm still not positive it is in our best interest to do so.  What I am saying, is that, at what point does a defensive maneuver become an offensive one?  At the risk of sounding simple, I would say that in some ways, it is not too far removed from football.  Take the Super Bowl;  Tampa's defense was extremely aggressive. They not only took advantage of every stupid move the Raiders made, but also applied enough consistent pressure that they encouraged (if not actually forced) the Raiders to bumble around more.  Yet, on the other hand, it is entirely possible to overextend yourself defensively.  So, I guess what I'm asking is: In today's nuclear, bio-warfare world, what differentiates an offensive move from a defensive one?