At 03:10 PM 9/20/2002 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote: >So what you're saying is that if a dictator/despot/warlord whatever >poses a threat to the western world (especially the US by virtue of its >leadership position), by developing offensive weapons that can be used >outside their borders, or deployed to the US, they should be stopped by >the US deploying it's own weapons.
The US's own *conventional* weapons, of course, but yes. >I don't believe for a second that UN inspectors will get free unfettered >inspections, but all the while the offer is on the table, Iraq is >technically less of a threat than other despotic WMD-equipped nations >who don't allow inspections. I should point out that inspectors have *never* before been used as *detectives.* Inspections have been used in the past as a way of verifying the claims of a country that is making a good-faith effort to abide by an international agreement. For example, inspections have helped boost confidence between the US and the USSR/Russian Federation that the other has been abiding by agreed arms-control limitations. There has never, however, been a case of using inspectors as *detectives*, responsible for ferreting out a country's very-intentional non-compliance with agreements. Thus, all of these proposals for the return of inspectors are essential proposals to have a certain group of people carry out a task for which they have not been initially trained, for which they have little experience in, and for which they are ill-suited. >We know NK and PRC have WMD, and their leaders oversee brutal regimes, >and yet the suspicion that Iraq may have WMD is sufficient to go in and >blaze away? Hell, for all we know Pakistan is more of a threat than Iraq >- we know they have the weapons and we don't know who will be in control >of them by next year... If you think that Pakistan is as likely to attack the US and US interests as Iraq, then you are simply not watching the same world that I am in. As for the PRC and the DPRK, sorry but it is not in the US interests to attack an enemy that might easily defeat us, or at least bloody us real good. (Well, we *could* take out the DPRK, but there is a very real chance that the PRC woudl rush to its defence, as it did once before.) The reason that Iraq is at the top of the list is because there is a very, very good chance that if we attack Iraq with overwhelming force, we will win. If you are going to establish a brand-new foreign policy regime for the world, namely that the US will attack any nation that threatens us with weapons of mass destruction, then it makes sense to try and start this new foeign policy off with a success. In other words, given that no country is *more* of a threat than Iraq. And given that Iraq is the most vulnerable of countries that are a threat. It makes sense for the US to attack Iraq first. Once Iraq is dealt with, however, we will be dealing with the rest of the Axis of Evil (members of which have not yet bee named.) Just you wait. >Does anyone understand why the Bush administration is investing so much >of America's energy into this pursuit, when there are so many other >problems, foreign and domestic, facing the country today? >Why is Saddam such a dire threat this year when he wasn't worth chasing >last year? The answer is that the United States is a democracy, and that September 11th has changed our political motivations. Last year, us Americans believed that no country would ever truly use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States. September 11th last year was like being shaken out of a very pleasant dream. Suddenly, it became very obvious that some people *would* use weapons of mass destruciton against us if only that they could. September 11th suddenly gave Americans resolve that we will now do everything we can to never give a mad man the *chance* to use those weapons against us. The risks are simply too high. As I told Deborah, the proper question here is not "How sure are we that Hussein will use WMD against us?" the proper question is "How sure are we that we will not?" Indeed, if you want to know just how much things have changed, three years ago, my parents were very excited that I had taken a job from the US Government and that I was moving to Washington - only three hours from their home near Philadelphia. Last year, I had my Dad pull me aside and say "You know J.D., the world has changed, and you might want to at least think about finding another city to live in sometime in the near future." Imagine that - being scared to live in your nation's capital because you think that there is a real risk that a nuclear or biological weapon will go off there. Welcome to America post 9/11/01. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
