Quote:
Originally posted by JeremySF
Exactly.
If you want every reason, you can read about it in National Review.
But WMDs are a major reason to go to war with Iraq. Can you imagine if Saddam did already have nukes? Then we'd have the same problem we have with N. Korea. Why wait until he does?
|
Can you imagine if Libya had nukes? Remember when Ghadaffi was public enemy #1? What if Syria had nukes? They have publicly called America "The Great Satan" - a term that was coined by Iran. Imagine if Iran had nukes?
And what about Pakistan? The first time the world trade center was bombed in 1993 it was by a Pakistani. The Taliban were trained and supported by Pakistani intelligence. A number of the 911 hijackers and their aids were Pakistani. Imagine if Pakistan was run by a military dictator AND had nukes? Wait a minute! They have both!! And Pakistan scientists were caught leaking nuclear secrets to the Taliban post-911. Gee, it's a good thing we are not attacking Pakistan.
Besides the fact that there is huge uneveness in the targets America chooses, if you want to get rid of every dictator who MIGHT have nukes, treats their people like shit and actively hates the US, you will have to invade dozens of countries. It is irrational and counter-productive. It will lead to MORE terrorism not less. It will lead to a a major global conflict, perhaps WW III.
This is a global chess game currently being played by the US. It has nothing to do with humanitarian aid. It has nothing to do with eliminating WMDs. It has everything to do with securing all the remaining reserves of shallow-depth oil on the planet and of ruling the planet with an iron-fisted Imperial Military Regime.