Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to I think you are mistaken, and here is why

I disagree with many of your assumptions here
Matt Burley — (archived)

"Again, this just doesnt wash. It is NOT in security interests to conduct a war that will be judged as un-just. It is entirely antithetical to the needs of our larger war on terrorism. It is counterproductive in the sense that it is isolating us at the time we are engaged in a war that absolutely REQUIRES the cooperation and good will of other nation states. We can't put police on the street corner in Jakarta, Pakistan etc... But Jakarta, Pakistan etc can...."

Nations such as Indonesia and Pakistan don't cooperate and support efforts to hunt down Al Queda because they like us or approve of the "just" nature of our foreign policy. (in act they strongly disapprove of our foreign policy with regard to Israel) They do so because (1) they realize that Islamist terrorists are a threat to them as well, and (2) they are scared shitless of the wrath of the world's sole superpower if we find out that they've been aiding Al Queda. In fact, that's exactly why Musharraf turned around 180 degrees after Sep. 11, in terms of Paki support of Taliban/Al Queda. You seem like a really bright guy, Davin, but here's a newsflash - nations don't have good will and they don't have friends - they have interests and they act accordingly.

"In addition, Iraq does not pose a clear and present danger- it simply does not. There is nothing more or less threatening about Iraq than 4 years ago, or 10 years ago. Nothing has changed."

Any nation run by a bloody tyrant as evil as Saddam who covets weapons of mass destruction is a grave threat to the entire civilized world. Responsible nations, and responsible international organizations (the UN is not, unfortunately) must act to protect modern civilization on the planet.
The threat is growing becuase WMD are getting easier by the day to obtain, manufacture, or anonymously pass to terrorists. It's especially the latter which is the very grave, and very visible, danger Saddam poses.

If you were correct, one would have to ask, "When is a tyrant EVER evil enough for action to be taken to disarm, and remove him from power??" Was Milosevic of Serbia evil enough? Saddam is 10 times worse.

"...why are we not just as concerned about Libya, Syria or Egypt? All are much more friendly with terrorists, Esp Libya and Syria"

Now this statement is factually incorrect. As bad as the human rights records of this Muslim nations may be, Iraq is far worse than all of them, and a far greater supporter of anti-American terrorism. Just like Pakistan, Libya and Syria both condemned the Sep. 11 attacks (Iraq applauded them, by the way) and as far as the governments are concerned, they don't support Al Queda because they too are threatened by them. There are terror groups in Egypt (Islamic Brotherhood for instance) that cooperate with Al Queda but Mubarak's gov't clearly does not.

Perhaps North Korea would have been a better example. Saddam is the gravest threat out there but North Korea may be 2nd. But let's handle one evil dictator at a time. When Saddam is toast, we should turn our attention to NK, and do everything possible to assist the collapse and merciful end of that Axis of Evil as well.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)