Some quick points:
quote:
Would it be fair to say that you think it unlikely we will be attacked by any weapons emanating from Iraq then? Because if you think that is possible now or in the near future, while we are waiting, then are you suggesting that is a risk should be willing to take?
I would say that with inspections teams on the ground we are currently safer than we were when there were no teams. If we are going to go after high risk areas then there are others (some of which are putting us at much greater risk):
a) The nuclear and biological facilities in the former Sovier Union which due to underfunding (part of which promised by the international commnunity) are leaking the very WoMD that we are attacking Saddam over.
b) The arms bazaars on the Pakistan/Afghanistan borders where anything can be bought.
c) Libya and Syria which have both been notorious for training terrorists in the past.
d) Pakistan's nuclear programme which is directly reponsible for 'rogue states' (specifically North Korea) acquiring the means to start a nuclear programme of their own).
e) Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc. which are breeding grounds for the kind of radical Islam which motivated the 911 terrorits, etc.
but, of course, some in that list happen to be people we have allied ourselves with.
I find your reply to point 3 the one that makes me the most nervous but I'm glad you have said it as it probably explicitly says something which the US administration are thinking but are not prepared to say out loud.
I would also ask when does this pre-emptive action become meddling in other countries/regions politics. Tony Blair has said there are a dozen other states that need to be addressed are we going to go sticking our noses in there?
This article is interesting in that regard:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,888443,00.html
during the Cold War it was the 'War Against Communism', in the eighties and nineties it was the 'War Against Drugs' and now (post-911) it is the 'War Aginst Terror' but nothing seems to change - we seem to be supporting one group of evil and corrupt people largely because they are 'Our Men' holding back the tides of whatever we have deemed the enemy this decade. The biggest irony is that Saddam and Bin Laden were Our Men when it suited us and now they have bitten the hand that fed them we find it expedient to remove them. In the end nothing ever changes except tens (hundreds) of thousands of people get killed.
Would a better strategy being to stop this Neo-imperial political meddling that we have been doing for so long (and which has brought us nothing but problems) and actually work through organisations like the UN to work to promote things that might have longer term benefits e.g. addressing isssues equality, environmental change, etc.?
Hmmmm those quick points turned into longer ones - more later.........
___________________
Emps
FAQs: Emperor
posted 02-04-2003 16:30
