I don't necessarily agree with Scott Adams's personal views, but on some points we synch up quite well. On the Iraq debate, it seems we have some commonality as well (although I think the data unreported by the MSM largely supports that there was an active weapons program and that many of the WMDs were moved to the Bekka Valley and to Syria just prior to the invasion). I didn't think the invasion was the right move, and when it did happen, I didn't think it was done with enough troops or appropriate planning for an extended occupation. And I know diddly squat about such matters so my opinion matters very little. However, I do think we have an obligation to stay and help the new Iraqi government stabilize and gain strength. We walked in and disrupted the situation, so we'd better stay and help set things right as much as possible.
Mr. Adams takes up the "argument" that somehow we should have invaded another country that has a lunatic dictator and an active weapons programs, North Korea (or more specifically, that we had more justification to do so). I nearly jetted streams of Fess Parker's Frontier Red from my nostrils when I read the following:
To me, it seems safer to have one America-hating nut job with WMD compared to two. And since zero isn’t an option, it makes sense to whack the guy whose WMD and army are still somewhat dysfunctional. That cuts the risk in half.
I guess I could argue with his reasoning, but I suspect I'd just look silly.
*I used to follow a mailing list for technical writers that had a number of rather testy individuals. Unbeknownst to us, Scott Adams had been following some of our discussions about a strip he had featured with Alice the engineer. After waiting and watching with some amusement to the heated debate about Alice, he jumped in and let us know that he found the debate enlightening and that he'd be introducing a new character soon. A few weeks later Tina the Brittle Technical Writer was born.