It looks to me that Israel is the sticky thorn in our non-proliferation policy. I feel that if the US cuts all aid and support to Israel, they would be more inclined to use conventional and nuclear weapons (or any other WMD they secretly posess) to end this "border dispute" definitely. If you think about it in that extreme, Israel could get aid from us at knifepoint just like N. Korea is trying to do. I also think this logic of "if we can have it, so can they" is a perverted form of total non-proliferation by the demoralized hippie front. You can't say it's 'all or nothing' because if it were like that, human civilization would end up that way as well.
There are several issues being dealt with here, and most of the positions on them are so knee-jerk it's frightening.. The 'insanity' of Hussein, etc... I believe the man is immoral, untrustworthy, and ruthless...in other words a pretty typical political leader. Why has he become insane? Was he insane when he was our ally? If so, why did we support him to gain leverage over the USSR in the Middle East? Or were they more insane? We have this incredibly sophomoric need to characterize any enemy as 'insane' since Hitler...especailly if they have different culture/skin color/religion, but where has Hussein ever demonstrated a lack of mental stability? Yes, he is pretty free and easy with violence; he is a dictator. That's what they do...we should know, we've put/kept enough of them in power. But this is a man who has maintained power for decades in an incredibly unstable political region, so obviously what he's doing works, as far as his staying in power is concerned, and as that is his ultimate goal, how can he be depicted as insane? The fact that he has a different moral scale than most of us doesn't equate to having a lack of a grasp on reality...and he would have to lack that grasp to do something as suicidal as using nuclear arms offensively. He has shown that, above and beyond all other things he prioritizes keeping himself in power, and using WMD would be the most assured way to lose that power...why would he do it? What has he ever done that virtually any run of the mill dictator hasn't done in the ever lasting pursuit of his own stay at the top? Yes, he has committed horrible acts...many leaders have, and will continue to do so, including the leaders of many of our allies. Why do we have the right to say that his are accountable to the United States? To whom were we accountable when we were committing our own versions of genocide and enslavement? Did those acts mean that our leaders at the time were insane? I'm not debating whether or not he is a good leader here...I am debating whether or not he is insane, because that is the only justification we can come up with for saying that he has no right to access the same kind of power we currently have. Can someone please tell me when he has shown himself to be mentally incompetent, or in search of an appocalyptic climax to his political career, which he has served longer than any American political leader. He just might understand the repercussions of using WMD almost as well as some of us... Nuclear Credibility People in here have actually said that they wouldn't trust some nations with nuclear arms as much as they would the U.S., or even, say, China or Russia...I have one question...why? When it comes to someone's credibility with something, their record in that regard is the most used and reliable method of determining who is and who isn't 'responsible' with said item. Want to own a gun? Sure, pal, unless you have used a firearm in a crime before, then, reasonably, we say no. Have a record or drinking and driving? You might find it a tad harder to get your licence renewed...Have a history of abusing children, and you might not get that teaching job...Pretty sound thinking, no? But here the American apologists will dither, and claim that it is different in this case...because, boys and girls, the United States of America, yes Johhny, the same one currently saying who is and who isn't responsible enough to use nuclear arms, yes that US of A, is the only nation in the history of the world to use nuclear arms against an enemy...I suppose that that record doesn't matter, cause it was decades ago, right? But, geez, folks, isn't it a bit of a leap from World's Only Nuclear Offender to Nuclear Judge? And, yes, I have heard the tenous claim that the bomb saved lives...American lives. Pretty weak agument...if Saddam were to get his hands on some bombs during the American invasion, and somehow wipe out the US, wouldn't that potentially save some Iraqi lives? But that wouldn't be the point, would it? No one is questioning the pragmatic application of nuclear force, else it's just another weapon...we're questioning the morality of same, and there we have the dirtiest hands in the room. Wrong is wrong is wrong... And as far as these modern day Metternech's advocating the Chinese or Russian credibility over the likes of Iraq or Iran, I have another question...when did it all change? We were willing to give Saddam chemical and biological weapons merely as a foil to Soviet power, and now we're saying that he's not trustworthy enough to have them, not like our buddy Russia? Where do you go to school to get your WMD Credibility Badge? Self Determination People in here keep waxing eloquent about the suffering of the Iraqi people, and the fact that they need liberation, because they are not democratic, like us. Interesting...without going into the debate of whether or not we actually are all that democratic, let's consider the fact that have come so far in our pursuit of self-determination that we now feel we have the right to do it for others. We have established ourselves as the standard whereby other systems are judged, and we have given ourselves the right to modify those systems when and where they fail to measure up to our perception of what is correct; us. There is a maxim in psychology about bias...that is that if you base a perspective on the assumption that you are right, you will, after much thought, almost always come to the conclusion that you are right. We were founded on the principle that foreign superpowers don't have the right to impose their standards on a people just because they happen to be more powerful...and it was such a good principle that we now feel that we should impose it on others in their own lands. Interesting development, that. There are more issues, and I will attempt to deal with them later, but I have to run for now....later,and Peace.
What double standard is there? Brutal, murderous regimes should not have weapons of mass destruction, period. It's okay for democracies to have them, but not for dictatorships with an eye on regional domination. It's just dumb to allow these nations to build these types of weapons. Can you imagine what would have happened if Hitler got a hold of them? When would he have been stopped?
I have to say Iran probably just needs the power. It would be really hard to hide something like nuclear development and Iran with the help of Pres. Khatami is improving its relationships with the west. I did a search on http://news.google.com for Iran, most of the articles tell of how America will not invade Iran due to the fact it is democratic and the nuclear plans will be for the best and the public shouldn't worry. I HIGHLY DOUBT IRAN WOULD GIVE "NUCLEAR" OR OTHER WEAPONS OF ITS KIND TO ANY TERRORIST ORGANISATION. However it is possible they might sell weapons (e.g Semi-automatic rifles, ammo) to those willing to buy it. I actually hope to see this stop
Yes...If it's Lake Houston, we are minutes apart. Atascocita and Humble are slapped together, so the two communities are often noted together.
I believe the man is immoral, untrustworthy, and ruthless...in other words a pretty typical political leader. Why has he become insane? Was he insane when he was our ally? If so, why did we support him to gain leverage over the USSR in the Middle East? Or were they more insane? Your argument seems to begin with the notion that Saddam is misunderstood. Continuing with the impression Saddam is a victim of US slander. You attempt to rationalize his disdain and compare him to the prototypical democratically elected official. What has Saddam done to recieve this unfair repute? To list a few... - Lighting a few hundred (900 would be a more accurate figure) oil wells afire during the Iraq war. - The launching of missles at Israel during the Iraq war. - The use of nerve gas against the people of Iraq with reports of large amounts stored underground in Iraq. - Claims made by Iraqi defectors that he sentences to death anyone who speaks in his presence before he orders them to. - After taking the helm as Iraqi president, he sentenced 100 newly elected government officials to death based on his own paranoid suspicions with the intention of using fear to manipulate any opposition. - The slaughter of 50,000 people have also been killed by the very weapons many claim today Iraq doesn't have. And go on ahead and add 100,000 others still unaccounted for and declared missing. How many serial killers could you conjure up with this kind of body count? - And clearly ignoring 17 UN resolutions isn't exactly going to get anyone high marks on the sanity scale. Ugh, how many times must one put to rest the ally business? This is like saying, " why should the US consider present day Russia an ally? Weren't they the source of the Cold War fear that had this country preparing for nuclear war once upon a time?" Obviously, no one here is going to reject Russia as an ally based upon past conflict between the two countries. The political and social ambiance changes constantly. "But what about Hitler and Germany? Why should we listen to Germany's concerns about a potential Iraq conflict?" Enough already! The fact that he has a different moral scale than most of us doesn't equate to having a lack of a grasp on reality...and he would have to lack that grasp to do something as suicidal as using nuclear arms offensively. He has shown that, above and beyond all other things he prioritizes keeping himself in power, and using WMD would be the most assured way to lose that power...why would he do it? A different morale scale? Who cares what he deems morally acceptable? Murder is murder. If a serial killer can be deemed mentally incapable of acting as a normal citizen then what does that say about Saddam? But I don't understand how this entire issue has been reduced to politically correcting the way we address Saddam Hussein. Should we get all bent out of shape because President Bush believes Saddam is crazy? No. Clinton felt the same way as well as I do. Just the murder of one person is incomprehensible to me. Would Saddam use nuclear weapons if he had the capabilities? Who knows, right? But given his track record with other WMD and his pursuit of trying to attain nuclear weapons its an appalling concept. Yes, he has committed horrible acts...many leaders have, and will continue to do so, including the leaders of many of our allies. Why do we have the right to say that his are accountable to the United States? To excuse Saddam from accountability based on the acts of others in history is obscene. What versions of genocide and enslavement are you talking about? Well of course, if you subscribe to this ideology not even Hitler himself would be looked upon as a war criminal. The implication this man has unaccounted weapons for whatever reasons with ties to terrorists is inexcusable. This isn't pre-9/11. We no longer can ignore the threat of terrorism. We've dedicated a year to working with the UN to clear Saddam and he continues to defy. Why? Why? And why? All the US has asked is for Saddam to account his weapons. He has failed to do so- I will not rationalize his decision. The fact is Saddam is atypical of any head of state. I agree there are others who should be held responsible for their past actions but that doesn't excuse Saddam from judgment. Iraq has incessantly lied to the United Nations weapons inspectors about weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had a lot of time to hide these weapons because for a while Iraq would not let the UN weapons inspectors conduct their operations fully. By the time Iraq let the weapons inspectors in, they were not allowed to search the places they were concerned with. Hmmm.... In 1995 Iraq admitted to making hundreds of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads. An infectious dose of anthrax is one-millionth of a gram. The idea for their Scud warheads is to launch them and, when they are hit by missiles, the Scuds will explode and spread the chemicals over nearly a 60-kilometer radius. Do I want this man in control of such weapons? No thank you. This isn't an issue of mental capability. Whatever he may be he is very dangerous. We need to cease this ridiculous debate of how dangerous Saddam is. It is quite apparent how dangerous he is. But we continue to deaden progress in the debate by blaming the United States for every inconsistency in this world. Lets blame the US for UN sanctions! Surely thats the reason the people are suffering! Saddam isn't the problem that republican in the Whitehouse is the problem! Many claim the oil for food program under the UN sanctions is the cause of the Iraq suffering. Hooey. This program is more than capable of providing for the people of Iraq, but the Iraqi government deliberately obstructs it time and again. Saddam sneaks many of the needed imports on ships to be resold dirt cheap, so that he can turn the oil-for-food program's goods into military spending money. Or how about smuggling oil out of his country from refineries that are supposed to be out of commission? Christ, one has to wonder where on earth is all this money going to? Anyone else know Saddam is worth over $10 billion? Hmmmm... What relevance does Iraq have with the war on terror? Given his exclusive ties to Palestinian suicide bombers and cash rewards to kids who blow themselves up there has to be a little concern. Others claim Saddam doesn't care for the religious fundamentalism that spawned Al Quada. Well if he cares enough to reward those who blow themselves up in Jerusalem theres no reason to believe he wouldn't reward anyone willing to blow themselves up in New York. War is terrible. Its unfortune the UN won't engage itself in tough talk with Iraq to at least show their dismay at Iraq's stubborn stance. I wish war could be averted with the peaceful disarmament of Iraq.
Disarmament would not avert the war. Bush wants Saddam's head on a stick. Bush gets what Bush wants. Remember that Bush only started to talk about Iraqi disarmament after he was politically made to court UN approval. The UN changed the discussion from regime change to disarmament. Even after Bush agreed to go down the disarmament road, he still fiercely maintained that Saddam would not comply and regime change would be the only answer.
