John D. Giorgis wrote: >This editorial from The Economist is perhaps the most brilliant and cogent >position statement on Iraq that I have read yet. In sum, it makes the >case as to why it is necessary to attack Iraq, why UN support would be a >good idea, and ultimatel why the US must attack Iraq without UN support, >should it be refused. > So what you're saying is that if a dictator/despot/warlord whatever poses a threat to the western world (especially the US by virtue of its leadership position), by developing offensive weapons that can be used outside their borders, or deployed to the US, they should be stopped by the US deploying it's own weapons. This has nothing to with Daddy's grudge, nothing to do with Texan oil interests - this is about stopping a tyrannical mass murderer who has the weapons and can't be trusted. Like Kim, or Zemin, right?
I don't believe for a second that UN inspectors will get free unfettered inspections, but all the while the offer is on the table, Iraq is technically less of a threat than other despotic WMD-equipped nations who don't allow inspections. We know NK and PRC have WMD, and their leaders oversee brutal regimes, and yet the suspicion that Iraq may have WMD is sufficient to go in and blaze away? Hell, for all we know Pakistan is more of a threat than Iraq - we know they have the weapons and we don't know who will be in control of them by next year... Does anyone understand why the Bush administration is investing so much of America's energy into this pursuit, when there are so many other problems, foreign and domestic, facing the country today? Why is Saddam such a dire threat this year when he wasn't worth chasing last year? Cheers Russell C. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
