09-13-2002, 10:16 AM
|
#27
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by B1ade:
The thing about 'weapons of mass destruction' is this - the reason a lot of countries keep them is to do with the balance of power, i.e. if I didn't have any and my neighbour does.....scenarios, and then you get the whole arms race.
Mostly that only describes the cold war and the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) And only related to the US and NATO vs the USSR (now defunct). France had its own nukes but were not likely to use them.
Now, Iraq is hardly the only country with these type of weapons - the anthrax released in the USA was MADE in the USA, Britain sells arms to other countries and a large proportion of our budget is spent on defense, Israel has plenty, I'm sure Russia has some about somewhere and Pakistan and India do too, just to name a few. The USA has determined Iraq as a threat and want something visual to go with their 'War on Terror' campaign. After all, why now? Hasn't this issue been going on for years?
Also, the US have already decided on war as being the only answer- most political journalists have described the diplomatic 'motions' as just that. If they want to go to war in someone else's country and displace their (dysfunctional, it's true) government, they better make sure that they have some kind of long term plan, as opposed to 'go on in, bomb them and leave them to sort it all out'. That's how the Taliban got into power after America trained people to get rid of the Russian presence, and we all saw how well THAT worked out....
The war against Iraq (Deasert Storm) was declared with the blessings of the UN AND was a coalition of several nations not just the USA. Check the history. Saudi Arabia was in mortal fear that they were next, Jordan was sweating bullets and Israel had reason to be afraid as well.
Iraq is the only country so far that has and shows indications of doing so again, used the weapons they get.
The situation in the Middle East is already at a critical point. Taking another war into the region as opposed to actually SOLVING the problems would be an act of stupidity, and poorly thought out. The people have incredibly high levels of leukaemia and other such diseases, deformed babies and serious problems from the Gulf War, even the soldiers suffered and they were much better protected.
Mostly because their sovereign leader mr. Hussein is taking money that should be spent on medicine and food for his people and is putting it into weapons research and aquisition...ever wonder how a pissant little nation like Iraq could have the 4th largest army in the world? It was paid for by depriving his people.
The bottom line is this, if other alternatives have been tried (and demanding for an inspection while never having been inspected yourself is hardly what I'd call the diplomatic approach), there is some proof about the need to act NOW and there is consideration to the country afterwards and the high price of innocent lives - surely the world will agree. If the war begins without the UN's support, it will be for all the wrong reasons - a personal vendetta instead of focusing on the Iraqi people who are surely the most at risk, as well as people on other shores.
Other alternatives have been tried. The only reason the Coalition did not take out Hussein in the first war, was because he surrendered, the terms of that surrender were mandatory inspections, and reparations to kuwait and the repayment for expenditures of the Coalition. All these conditions have been ignored by hussein and the UN has failed to hold him accountable to this day. Basicly the man lost a war and has paid no penalty.
What right do the USA and the UK have to start an action that affects the world and without consulting the people they are supposed to be representing? I know from some polls I've heard that the majority of us Brits don't want this to happen and by Tony Blair encouraging it, he is not representing the voting public who'll be paying for this war, and who will have it on their collective conscious.
I doubt it will affect even half the world. Iraq could become a smoking crater tomorrow and life in the rest of the world would continue quite nicely thanks. The reason we elect leaders is not to blindly follow public opinion polls. The general public is a rather uninformed lot who don't know dick about what is really going on around them. A good leader will make his decision based on intelligence that the general masses never sees.
Anyway you slice it, the US and Anyone who backs them has the moral high ground when discussing ousting Hussein.
Sorry that went on a bit, but we all know that this war is not just about the accumulation of weapons, but all kinds of political issues from oil to power. In this case, the ends do not justify the means.
Actually in this case I believe military force is the proper means to accomplish the desired end.
|
I have to say you made your points quite well, I just believe they are all flawed [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 09-13-2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|
|
|
|