Dan Minette wrote: > Why I can see being opposed to attacking Iraq, I'm rather > surprised by your > language.
Could you specify the exact portions please? > 1) Do you think that Iraq is not in material breach of the > provisions that > ended the Gulf War? My understanding is that Iraq agreed to regular > inspections, and that it was understood that they were > required and would > be backed with force if need be. That's all correct. > 2) Do you think that it doesn't matter, the US has nuclear > weapons, India > has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iraq? Given Saddam's track record, it would be really nice if he didn't have access to nuclear weapons. > 3) Do you think that the sanctions should be lifted, giving > Iraq about $50 > billion a year in disposable income that can be used on weapons? No. > 4) Do you think the sanctions should be continued? Until an acceptable alternative is found, I guess they are needed. > However, I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 > dictatorships are > able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their > leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power. Is a part of that sentence missing? Seems like it. > As far as I can see, the protection of the UN is virtually worthless. > Examples of this include Israel and Kosova, and While, at > the same time, > there is some validity in protection offered by the US. > Examples of this > are Israel, S. Korea, Bosnia, and Taiwan. Certainly. I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd have no problems if the rest of the world chooses to opt for US protection. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
