[CX-L] Re: [eDebate] 3 cheers for SLF : 'go it alone'
Fri Sep 6 17:06:08 CDT 2002
Duane Hyland asks: "What do we do with Sadaam when he gets the bomb? Does an
nuclear armed Iraq make the Middle East any more stable than it is now? What
stops Sadaam from using the bomb on Israel? Why are we appeasing the modern
era equivalent of Hitler? It's nice to play the Chamberlain role in this
current "re-enactment" if you will of Munich, but remember it was Winston
Churchill who got the job done in the end."
well i think Winston Churchill would have more responsible than to cozy up
to the Iraqi regime for almost a decade, militarily supporting Saddam while
he used chemical weapons and invaded neighboring countries.
a better question might be, why didn't the US seriously consider Saddam's
offer, when he was still a US ally, to destroy his WMDs if Israel destroys
their's? oh that's right, no US leader can utter the words 'Israel has
nukes' because that would mean the US has been violating international
agreements that restrict military aid to countries with clandestine nuclear
programs. still, i betcha if the US repeated this offer, Saddam would snatch
it in a heartbeat.
see, in Saddam's mind, what stops Israel from using their nukes on Iraq, or
other Arab nations, if the spirit moves them? i mean, it's not like Israel's
conventional forces aren't strong enough to deter and repel any Arab
regardless, i agree with former Ambassador to Iraq David Newton's assessment
of Saddam, published on page 256-8 of Bob Woodward's 'the Commanders', a
historical & journalistic account of US military decisions from 8 November
1988 to 16 January 1991:
"Newton told Cheney that Saddam was a 'tough, ruthless, hard-nosed,
intelligent and sometimes brutal leader who is used to getting his own way.'
Saddam's political history emphasized *physical survival*. ... Saddam was a
believer in the practical use of force, Newton added. ... The experts also
told Cheney and Scowcroft that Saddam did not hae a Masada Complex, he was
Saddam isn't that close to getting a nuke, and i doubt he really wants one,
because it's really not worth the trouble. he keeps the scientists around so
that he can have a short time-frame nuclear capability to deter Israel. he
hasn't used his large stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponry against
Israel, even though he's had that capacity for a while.
so he's not so much a Hitler as a mini-Stalin: he doesn't enjoy killing
people, but he'll kill as many people as he has to in order to maintain
power. even if he gets a lot of nukes, detterance will work to keep him in
check, though it would increase his relative hegemony, perhaps giving him a
bid for substantial international sway, like every other country that has
developed nukes: China, Russia, France, India, Israel, the US, etc.
i mean, why didn't Hyland raise a fuss when Pakistan joined the nuclear
states? that's a military dictatorship too, and one that is much closer to
sparking an actual nuclear conflict. and yet the US is it's ally now too,
even though they're surely harboring more Al-Queda than Iraq.
in fact, from a realist foreign policy perspective, the ONLY instance i can
see Saddam using whatever WMDs he may have is if an credible invasionary
force seeks to change his regime, which is EXACTLY what the US is going to
do. last time he was cornered, he started gassing people left and right -
who knows what he'll do this time?
so i hope this 'turn' finally answers your question, Duane. :k
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Mailman