--- Kevin Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? > He'd have to be an > idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the > US, and no possible way > of beating them in a war. There's no reason.
He was willing to assassinate George Bush. What do you think our response would have been had he succeeded? Why do you think _your_ standards of reasonability are the same as those of someone who has people dropped feet first into shredding machines? His standards are (hopefully) different. > > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and > > _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two > questions. > > Not the same question at all. In the first case a > crime has been committed, > and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a > crime. In the second > case, the US should make it very clear to him what > the consequences of such > an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no > doubt, and maybe other > cities as well.) Why would he care? Does he have any history of solicitude for the lives of his people? For that matter, would we really do it? Kill millions of innocents because of the actions of one man? Maybe in 1945, but now? > > > > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes > no > > explicit threats. Same two questions. > > It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In > this case, diplomatic and > economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq > to make him disarm. Or > failing that, at least pledge not to attack other > nations pre-emptively. And you think this would work why? After 12 years of diplomatic and economic pressure such as no other country in the world has ever seen, it took 250,000 American soldiers on his border to force him to accept weapons inspectors and _not_ cooperate with them. Wo what sort of diplomatic and economic pressure do you think someone who _does not care_ about public opinion or the economic status of his people is likely to respond to? > I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. > It just doesn't follow > from your premises. Of course Saddam should be > prevented from developing > nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. > If hasn't commited a > crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you > punish him? That's just > vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind > of flawed reasoning would > have gotten us all into world war III a long time > ago if earlier statesmen > had thought the same way. _What_ diplomatic and economic means. You can keep chanting that, but you kind of have to give an example. Maybe 12 years of sanctions, total diplomatic isolation, and (just to kap things off) repeated bombing campaigns? Except that didn't work. Invading Iran. Invading Kuwait. Using chemical weapons on his own population. Attempting to assassinate George Bush. Violating a ceasefire agreement in which he agreed to give up WMD. Violating _18_ UN Resolutions calling on him to give up WMD. Which one of these actions is _not_ a crime? For that matter, this isn't about punishment. It's about prevention. If 5 million Americans have died, it's too damn late. The world has changed. An old joke in my old office - what's the easiest way to get a nuclear weapon into the US? Federal Express. In fact, given that we _still_ haven't caught the anthrax terrorists, why do you think we'd catch Saddam if he tried something like that? Heck, that might have been him. _We don't know_. Don't you think he might have noticed that? > We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I > certainly don't want to > see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly > don't want the US (or anyone > else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to > its safety by getting > into unnecessary conflicts that only make the > situation worse. So yes, I > really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the > case where no aggressive > act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever > be stupid enough to > attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with > weapons of mass > destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we > all have to live with. No. It's a risk _I_ have to live with. And Bob, plus any other New Yorkers on the list. It is, rather noticeably, _not_ a risk you have to live with. That's really one of the central distinctions, isn't it. If your proposed containment policy goes wrong, we do the dying. That changes the calculus a little bit, doesn't it? In this particular case, however, we have _multiple_ aggressive acts committed. So, even if I accepted the general principle you have described - and I don't - it doesn't apply in this case in even the tiniest degree. Again, you're saying that the US would have to wait until after NYC is destroyed before acting - before, I didn't think that anyone could seriously believe that, but I think that actually _is_ what you're saying. We have here: 1. An aggressive leader (multiple invasions of his neighbors) 2. Who is willing to use WMD 3. Who supports terrorists 4. Who has supported terrorist acts against the US that would have guaranteed his own destruction had they been successful. How does this combination _not_ add up to a threat from him? It is also, may I point out, unique. North Korea has never _used_ WMD, and has never supported terrorist attacks against the US of the type supported by Iraq. > > I mean, really - do you think New York will be made > safer by this war? No. Yes. Absolutely. > The invasion of Iraq is like a red flag to Islamic > Fundamentalists. It makes > their vendetta against the United States seem all > the more logical, > resonable, and seductive, because it seems to > confirm their worst fears. > Many future terrorists have been created in the last > ten days, and the world > is a more dangerous place because of that. > > Kevin Street These guys are flying airplanes into buildings, and you think they're going to get _more_ fired up? Given the history of the Arab world and its strong cultural tendency to attack weakness and defer to strength, plus the historical tendencies of dictators to do the same, why is the opposite argument - that US victory will convince the Middle East that it needs to change - not equally powerful? Given that these actions will decrease the real threat (unquestaionably) by removing WMD from the hands of someone willing to use them against the US, that seems pretty decisive to me. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
