Yeah, but would you have been in favor of that?? Timing - MAD doesn't work anymore, countries like Iraq don't care about their people's lifes. So although they know that they will be toast if they sell a WMD that is used against the US, they don't care or they hope that the UN or whoever will drag their feet and stop us. Which won't happen.
Do you really think we're ignoring them? Just because the media isn't reporting anything doesn't mean nothing is being done. Same with the battle with Al Queda. Tracking down paper trails and fundamental police detective work is not very sexy so it doesn't make the headlines. The media only reports what will get ratings. Not what is important.
Who is Saddam going to invade? He's surrounded by US troops and Turkey. He's not going anywhere. I don't want any country to have nukes but it seems we should be prepared to deal with a world where countries we don't like have nukes. We must change our foreign policy to deal with that because as it stands now, everyone knows if you have nukes the US will shy away from military solutions.
You really believe Saddam doesn't care about his life or his little empire? He might be a scary guy but he's not stupid.
No, we should not accept crazy dictatorships having nukes. That is, well, crazy. And of course the US will shy away from countries with nukes!! Do you have another suggestion????
The problem with this (and this is NOT meant as a criticism to No Worries, just an observation) is that many people <i>think</i> that sactions are a "prefered" way of dealing with a dictator instead of going to war. When this whole Iraqi thing was brought up (around the last SOTU address) a ton of people were saying things like war should be a last resort and that we should try sanctions instead. As you can see here (and with Cuba) sanctions don't necessarily work and can cause more harm then good in the long run. Now, this doesn't mean that sanctions shouldn't be an option but that they are not necessarily more "humane" then war. Is it better to die slowly via disease and mal-nutrition or quickly? (Note: that last question was rhetorical.)
I said that he doesn't care about his people's lifes not his own, he is a selfish b*stard, of course he cares about his own life and his regime. In his "empire" only power matters, not his people. I would also argue that he is stupid.
According to the Bush administration we're talking but not negotiating. Whatever that means. I think nuclear threats get pretty good ratings.
And it's important that we don't negotiate or at least come across as negotiating (even if what called "talk" is really negotiation). It's the same reason governments, in general, never negotiate with terrorists. Because if you negotiate then you've just advertised to the world that taking hostages or threating nuclear war works. If N.K. puts its nukes off the table then we'll negotiate. However to negotiate under threat of nuclear attack will send the wrong message and encourage other countries, etc... that if they want action from the U.S. they need to threaten us with nukes. This was the problem, IMO, with the last "treaty" we signed with N.K. "We'll give you aid if you don't develop nukes." That is little more then blackmail.
Of course we do everything to deny them however does that include invasions every time there's a dictator we don't like? Do you want to be invading dictatorships until the end of time? Did you favor an invasion of North Korea in the early 90's before they had nukes? Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of casualties there would have been? The only reason we attack Iraq is because it's easy for us. What about when it's not so easy? Then what?
Timing, Maybe it is easy. So what? Are you trying to say the US is hypocritcal if it doesn't go after much more difficult targets? I don't think it's about hypocrisy, it's about reality. Should we invade every dictatorship that tries to amass nuclear weapon? No, but we should do SOMETHING. Isreal in the 80's did a pre-emptive attack on Iraq's weapons facilities- that turned out to be very beneficial to the world. Maybe a pre-emptive targetted attack will be called for in some instances. Maybe sanctions will be needed in others. But your vision of a world where dictators are allowed to get nuclear weapons because "it's too hard to stop them" is a scary one. Remember the Cold War? This would be worse.
we should not accept crazy dictatorships having nukes That might mean that we have to preemptively invade Pakistan every other time their government changes. We would also have to have subjectively grade their "craziness". If the government is only a little crazy (or crazy to an acceptable level as defined by the current times or way too crazy but support other important US goal like support for the Afghani regime change), invasions may not be necessary.
No Worries, it's not the "crazy" part I care about, it's the "dictatorship" part that worries me. Dictatorships are usually unstable and prone to massacres, human rights abuses, invasions, etc. And you are implying that I believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem, but I don't. It seems you would rather the democracies of the world just GIVE UP and let all these dictators acquire weapons of mass murder.
First of all, I never said I had a vision where dictators are allowed to get weapons. How preposterous, you going to call me unamerican now? What I did say is that we need to be prepared to deal with a nuclear world and change our foreign policy from one of bullying people to one of international cooperation. Bullying foreign policy creates a situation where North Korea can call you out specifically because it knows that's where the threat of force will come from. Our policy allows North Korea to ignore South Korea, Japan, and everyone else in order to isolate the US as we shy away and try to get others involved because we don't want to be on the clock alone with a nuclear blackmail situation. Second of all, yes it is hypocritical when the Bush administration decries WMD as a danger to the world, a potential source for Al-Qaeda, and then is ready to invade Iraq at the drop of a hat and while largely ignoring WMD in Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, or even the crazy ass Sharon regime in Israel which is of great concern to the Muslim world. As for your pre-emptive attacks scenarios that's really not any different from invasion. You do a targeted bombing in North Korea and they rush the border just as easily as if you were massing US troops there. You only do pre-emptive attacks on countries who can't respond anyway. BTW, a pre-emptive attack is an act of war and North Korea even considers sanctions to be an act of war. So then what?
It's a bit of a reach to go from saying that leaders should do what's right even when unpopular to concluding that being unpopular makes a leader right...
just my $.02. great speech by Blair. It is sad that he is losing support in his homeland. My fear: the longer we stall with more weapons inspections and such, the more time Saddam has to consider an "Iraqi Deflection Policy" where he can hand over some weapons to Al Qaeda for a U.S. attack, causing the U.S. to put Iraq on the backburner while addressing a potential domestic tragedy.
How on earth does a "bullying policy" create a situation where North Korea can call us out? North Korea is calling us out because they acquired nuclear weapons. We were cooperating with them in the 90's, and they violated the agreement. And how does our policy cause North Korea to ignore South Korea and Japan? North Korea has been a very closed dictatorship for while now, long before W. was on the scene. Again, it's not hypocritical to not fight nations with WMD. It's reality. We cannot fight those nations. Do you want Saddam to be in the same position, where he is pretty much protected thanks to weapons? This guy is a ruthless dictator, the world will be a much worse place if Iraq is a nuclear power. I only stated pre-emptive attacks as one option. We have to consider other options as well. But "cooperating" with roque regimes just because they have nuclear weapons doesn't strike me as very smart. This will provide even more incentive for dictatorships to acquire them.
Originally posted by Mr. Clutch How on earth does a "bullying policy" create a situation where North Korea can call us out? North Korea is calling us out because they acquired nuclear weapons. We were cooperating with them in the 90's, and they violated the agreement. And how does our policy cause North Korea to ignore South Korea and Japan? North Korea has been a very closed dictatorship for while now, long before W. was on the scene. How? lol Why on Earth do you think North Korea only wants to talk to the US regarding the current situation? They're avoiding the middle men and going straight to the only player who has the power to do things and enough influence over South Korea and Japan to make any deal stick. Where did they get that idea I wonder? They're calling us out for our presence in that part of the world and saying we're directly responsible for the situation. What's to stop any other country in the future from doing the same thing considering how deep we're involved around the world? Again, it's not hypocritical to not fight nations with WMD. It's reality. We cannot fight those nations. Do you want Saddam to be in the same position, where he is pretty much protected thanks to weapons? This guy is a ruthless dictator, the world will be a much worse place if Iraq is a nuclear power. We can fight any nation on Earth, just ask Don Rumsfeld. The same position as Iran and Pakistan? Who have they invaded lately? How many weapons have they given to Al-Qaeda? Those two are far more religiously "crazy" than Iraq. I only stated pre-emptive attacks as one option. We have to consider other options as well. But "cooperating" with roque regimes just because they have nuclear weapons doesn't strike me as very smart. This will provide even more incentive for dictatorships to acquire them. I'm not talking about cooperation with rogue regimes, I'm talking about international cooperation to deal with rogue regimes. You don't think only attacking countries without nukes is incentive enough for everyone to get nukes? Nobody needs any more incentive than that.
1) Regarding North Korea, I don't think they are calling us out because of "our presence" over there. But even if they are, so what? We are over there to protect democratic South Korea from belligerent North Korea. We have been doing the right thing. 2) No, we can't fight any nation on earth, although we should say we can to at least deter them. I'm not sure what your point is here. 3) "international cooperation to deal with rogue regimes"- What does that mean? "You don't think only attacking countries without nukes is incentive enough for everyone to get nukes? Nobody needs any more incentive than that." That is an incentive, and just the defensive capabilities of nukes are enough incentive, but we don't want to give them even MORE incentive by cooperating with them as if they were normal nations.
