From: Pat Fallon (pfallon@ptd.net)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 14:59:50 MST
> > OK, so let's follow this track of logic. Weapons of mass
> > destruction are bad. Really bad. They're evil. That's why
> > Saddam has to go, because he has WMD. Wellllll..the US has
> > WMD too, what's the deal here, are WE evil? Why of course
> > not. OUR WMD exist only as deterrents. Nobody would dare
> > nuke us, because we would then nuke them. So we would
> > NNNEEEVVVEERRRR use ours first, you see...
>
> That's one thing that definitely bothers me about many of the
> pro-war arguments--the idea that Iraq's possession of WMDs is
> somehow relevant. It's not.
Good point. What concerns me is not if someone possesses a weapon,
but if they initiate force against me.
> Free countries have every right to
> use any technology at their disposal for defense:...
I would try to factor in some concept of defense
which minimalizes damage to third parties, while
being sufficient to do the job.
> The reason for going after Iraq is not the kinds of weapons
> he might have, but the kind of person in charge, who is the kind
> of person likely to throw his weapons at Israel on a whim.
If force should be used only in self defense, justification for
pre-emptive attacks based upon psychological profiles seems
fraught with danger.
Furthermore, Israel may have a right to self defense,
but on it's own dime. Demanding that the US attack
Iraq because Sadaam is likely to throw a weapon at
Israel seems to sidestep a bit of a debate on whether
fighting Israels fights should be the guiding light of US
mid east policy.
IF so, get ready for an expanding US empire.
Anticipating a U.S. occupation of Iraq, Sharon
has called on us to smash Iran next. After that, Libya.
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 15:02:55 MST