Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen. Sure, Saddam may be interested only in regional domination, but what happens when he dies 15 years from now? Who takes over.. his charming son Uday? Maybe someone else who's interested in more than regional power?
And what if some al-Qaeda insider offers him a few million for <I>just one</I> long-range missile capable of dispersing VX nerve gas over an entire city?
All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous. Those sort of gentleman's agreements where countries are only supposed to attack if they're attacked first aren't gonna cut it anymore, because we're no longer dealing with countries that respect those sorts of agreements.
|
That's about as ridicuolous as the rhetoric about our most dire threat being from a missile attack...and thus necessitating the bloated and unnecessary missile defense sinkhole. States can't attack other states because they
think that sometime in the future they'll be attacked. If that precedent is set by the most powerful nation, what would stop other nations from doing so, and using the American attacks as their rationale?
The second problem with this is timing. Saddam's had 10 years since the Gulf War to launch attacks. And, despite the American view of the world, the incidences of terrorism worldwide have been on a general decline. So it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity, the motive, or the resources to attack in this time. This isn't to say that he won't attack tomorrow, it just shows that the
You're also missing the point that al-Qaeda and Saddam are pretty much sworn enemies. al-Qaeda views Saddam's secularism as anathema. In fact, one of the problems bin Laden has with America is that the Saudi government allowed us to come in for the Gulf War - not just because it soiled the holy ground, but also because he wanted to take care of it himself. Saddam does not rule according to Sharia and seems to pay only lip service to religion. bin Laden and his cohorting extremists want a non-corrupt government run by the church.
There was also an earlier post about anti-Americanism. In most cases, anti-Americanism means a dislike for American policies. American culture is still admired in most places of the world.
Quote:
|
I agree, if there's no firm evidence then we shouldn't do anything. But I think there is firm evidence that most of us aren't privvy to. There is news on the wires this morning about Rumsfeld sharing newfound intel with UN members that links Iraq to al Qaeda. Yes, it may well be more carefully-timed media puppeteering.
|
I wish I could believe that, but coming from this administration, with its obsession with secrecy...I want some proof, not behind closed doors decision-making.