war is war. The whole idea of banning chemical weapons during a war is absolutely ludicrous. It's not even sensible. It sounds great. But it's not reality. If a country has them they will use them. It's a freaking war. Oh wait, I'm losing, I'm about to die, but let me save the world rather than myself and not use my chemical weapons. My ass. They are going to be used. They were developed to be used for exaclty that. Chemical weapons are not a deterrent. They serve a purpose. Expect them to be used.
I think this particular issue has been overblown. However, the ban on chemical and other types of WMD would have some deterrence effect. Dictators, generals and ordinary soldiers would think twice before using them. There is a huge difference between being treated as a POW under the control of a civilized force and being hanged as a war criminal. When a treaty would rather permit countries to kill with MOABs rather than using (most people would think) more humane tear gas, I think it is time for revising the treaties.
Well if it was me posting as you, I'd call it "More of My Propaganda" or "Don't Think, Just Trust Me", but to each his own. How about "Rumsfeld Pushes for Use of Riot-Control Agents" or "Rumseld Considers CWC 'straightjacket'". Go back and read your first two lines: "Rumsfeld Wants to Use Chemical Weapons. Because Saddam gassed his own people, we're entitled to do the same thing?" Riiiiiiight. This is <I>exactly</I> the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up for us! The editorial is interesting to me to say the least. It starts saying that Rumsfeld considers the CWC to be a straightjacket, that the use of non-lethal agents could be useful. Then the author immediately snaps, as if he's educating Rumsfeld, that to use these would be a violation of the treaty. Isn't that <B>exactly</B> what he was saying? That they <i>can't</i> use these, even though he thinks they would save lives in instances? Hence, the CWC is the "straightjacket" limiting them. I realize no lefty trusts Rumsfeld, but the scenarios he raised were intended to save lives, and the article even states that when he says "Rumsfeld's desire to protect civilians is, in any case, totally impractical". You can argue, and maybe even successfully, that he should not be able to use those agents, but equating this to using-chemical-weapons-just-like-Sadaam was ludicrous and totally misleading. Of course, I realize clarifying this is moot since the whole purpose here was to introduce more shock value to continue the painting of Rumsfeld as Hitler reincarnated.
OK, I just ask you to go back and read my second sentence. We may mess around with petty dictators and fool around in foreign countries to protect an occasional company, but on the big things, we've been right on. It's those big things, like democracy, freedom, capitalism (with a moral foundation), and settling arguments with words on Capital Hill instead of with guns on the street that changed a world with only a handful of democracies in 1940 to one where those ideas are found on every continent. Now, we seem to be backsliding on a number of fronts and, I fear, endangering not only our own well-being, but also the ideals that have made us what we are. The point of my comments was not to compare any American to Hitler, but just the opposite--I don't want us to go down paths where there is no distinction between what we do and what a Hitler or a Saddam would do. We are better than that. I'm not a bleeding-heart or anti-war, but I think we are currently setting precedents that will be more to our detriment than our benefit. After 9/11 would have been a perfect time for us to push our ideas even more firmly on the world stage and show by example that liberal democracy is the best hope for the future of all countries. We had a golden opportunity to show the world that Al Qaeda will, ultimately, be crushed not only with our weapons, but our ideas. Instead, I think we have lost the strategic vision of the last century and become too obsessed with tactics. If we must fight, I would rather it be from the high ground and with an eye towards what the world can become instead of what it is.
sinohero makes sense with: This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Curiously, our resident peace-activists and concerned humanitarians are more concerned about us failing to abide by a ridiculous treaty stipulation than they are about actually preventing deaths. Perhaps their motives are not as pure as they would have us believe?
i expect or i was hoping to see a better n different america after 911, i thought it would change its policy, i thought the ameircan governement should play the victim role in the world , now look what it turn into, show its true color being an agressor anytime any oppurturnity it see.
In other words, you were hoping that the 9/11 attackers would succeed in their objectives? Why does that not surprise me? Oh, BTW - this is why your government doesn't want us to go into Iraq: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
One important fact in the real world we live in today seemed to have been lost on most anti-war folks. There are people in the world who would only listen to force. There are tyrants and dictators who would do anything to stay in power. Gandhi was a great man. But he was lucky that he faced the British colonialists instead of Sadam or Kim, in which case his family would have to pay the bullet that killed him. To deal with these tyrants, the world only has two tools: containment or conquest. Hitler and the ghost of Nazism would not fall without the complete subjugation of Germany. In order to spread the ideas of freedom, human rights and democracy, America cannot refrain from necessary military actions. What we see in Europe today shows that many in the world, at least those who would march in anti-war protests, consider ANY US military action to be more evil than even Sadam. Of course America may choose to roll over and play the "victim" by withdrawing all its soldiers overseas and declaring that it would never invade anyone under any circumstances. Does anyone think the world would be a better place?
Scene: guard post at a US embassy in Anytown, Anycountry... US soldier: "Sir, there's an angry mob down here at the gates. They're getting pretty unruly, sir - what should we do?" US Commander: "Just keep them under observation for now. Let me know if the situation changes." (5 minutes later) US Soldier: "Sir! They're throwing molotov cocktails at us! They're advancing and trying to push through the barricade! They're trying to get into the compound! What should we do, sir?!?" US Commander: "Stop them. This is sovereign US territory. Defend it." US Soldier: "Should we use the stickyfoam to immobilize them? What about CS, sir?" US Commander: (thinks for a minute) "No. Those weapons are prohibited by treaty. Just throw a couple of grenades at them. Use your MGs if they keep coming...." How does that sound?
