soula avramidis: >> "Blair stuck to a radical view that after >> Sept 2001 no unstable state could be allowed >> to have weapons that could fall into the hands >> of terrorists. " > > did anyone ask: is it not inevitable that weapons > of mass destruction will fall in the hands of terrorists" > and should it not be that the class system of international > relations should be revamped to preempt violent oppisition > at a time when only it is a matter of months before the > inevitable happens?
Fair question. But I think the following question is probably more important: Is there any state out there that is more unstable than the US at this point in history? Of course, before answering this question, defining stability would be helpful. Any takers? Best, Sabri
