What if Saddam uses WMD?

[MMMMMM]

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have all either made direct threats against the USA and/or supply weapons to terrorist organizations which have made such threats (and which organizations have carried out attacks as well.)

Saddam Hussein called for Jihad against the USA with a full-front-page newspaper ad on Dec.27, 2000. He may also have tried to assassinate Bush Sr. He is likely at least providing sanctuary to some terrorists now.

Iran supplies more weapons to terrorists than does any other country. The organizations it supplies include al Qaeda, and it harbors some al Qaeda.

North Korea has threatened to attack the US mainland with nukes if we do as little as to impose sanctions. North Korea sells weapons to rogue regimes and may sell to terrorists, and within a year North Korea may be able to produce one nuclear bomb per week. al Qaeda already has well-funded operatives in place throughout the Pacific to take delivery of North Korean nuclear material when it becomes available.

So: we appear to be considering pre-emptive action against only those regimes which have already made hostile threats and/or which have taken hostile actions, and which threaten to supply our worst enemies (such as al Qaeda) with very dangerous weapons. That seems a bit different than a blanket doctrine of pre-emption.

Also, the idea of pre-emptive attacks is not an entirely new historical development.

Also, those regimes which you fear might start considering such a doctrine, have actually already considered it. It is only practical considerations, not some greater code of international ethics, which have caused them to not implement such attacks. Rest assured that these rogue nations, if they could successfully employ pre-emptive attacks, would do just that, as well as committing other aggressive attacks that would have nothing to do with pre-emptive doctrine.

[nicky g]

"The organizations it supplies include al Qaeda"

Iran (or did you mean Iraq?)was a long term ally of the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The type of Islam propounded by the Iranian mullahs is as far from that of al-Qaeda you can get. Certainly some Taliban and al-Qaeda fighers have crossed into Iran, but nothing like the numbers that are in Pakistan, a US ally, whose intelligence service created the Taliban and was, probably in large parts still is, an al-Qaeda ally. It's absurd to claim Iran is an al-Qaeda ally and I doubt you can find any more evidence for this than for the claims that Iraq is linked to bin Laden.

[BruceZ]

Don't take to the streets Lee. Such protests will not stop the war, but they may very well prolong it and cause the loss of additional lives. Saddam is encouraged by our show of disunity, and he may even believe that if he holds out long enough that we will quit due to opposition at home. If you want the war to be over, the best way to achieve that is to show unity, not disunity. This is true regardless of whether you believe the war is right or wrong.

Other nations are well aware of the concept of pre-emptively striking in defense; they don't need us to teach them about that. They adopt this policy or not depending on whether it will be permitted by the world powers, not on what the US does. But this is not just a pre-emptive strike against a bad regime that poses a threat. Iraq is in violation of the terms of surrender from the previous war, a war in which Iraq was the aggressor. In that sense, this is a continuation of that war, not a pre-emptive strike. If these terms of surrender are not defended, that will truely set a bad precedent. It would show the world that the US is too weak to even defend the terms for which it fought a war, and those who died for that cause will have died in vain. It is a show of weakness, not a show of strength, which is most likely to provoke rogue nations and terrorists to take actions against us that they otherwise would not.

[IrishHand]

From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray.
Which minority is this? Lee was referring to world-wide acceptance. The world, by any measure I've read, is squarely opposed to current US policy. Even members of the "Coalition of the Willing" (what the rest of us call "Britain and Spain") don't have popular support for the Iraq invasion.

Seems to me the only relevant "minority" is the one blindly supporting a policy that lacks legitimacy or rationality (at least in terms of what's presented to the public - it's perfectly rational if you look at is as economic imperialism, which is another story entirely).

Irish

[Jimbo]

IrishHand you are such a funny fella! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Not quite to the level of absurdity that Paramenides reaches but you are trying!

Here is the quote by Lee i was addressing:
"But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy."

Now what part of the American public is not clear to you? It appears that Lee should know to whom he is referring better than you. Here is a quote of your interpretation: "Which minority is this? Lee was referring to world-wide acceptance." Counselor (if you are indeed an attorney) you should read more carefully or at least edit from a source more difficult to find than the same thread.

Now here is my quote which you managed to misunderstand as well:

"From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray." It should be clear that Lee and I both were referring to the American public, he the majority and I the minority. Are you sure your real name is not Mark Glover?

[Michael Davis]

"It is a show of weakness, not a show of strength, which is most likely to provoke rogue nations and terrorists to take actions against us that they otherwise would not."

Then why aren't terrorists attacking Eritrea?

Somehow I doubt that this "show of strength" makes us less likely to be a terrorist target.

[Jimbo]

Then why aren't terrorists attacking Eritrea? Let me take a guess!! Because no one else in the world would notice? Except for the Eritreans of course! After all 80% of their working population either farm or herd goats and cattle. The terrorists need major air time else their effort would be wasted.

[MMMMMM]

So if Iran only provides a little bit to al Qaeda (either directly or indirectly), and a lot to other terrorist groups, that's not sufficient reason to cut off Iran's support?

[Cyrus]

"Other nations are well aware of the concept of pre-emptively striking in defense."

Every time a country attacked another, the attacker claimed it "defended" something or other, be it vital interests, danger of imminent attack or innocent lives at the other side of the border. Whatever. Attackers rarely, if ever, admit they're just plain attacking.

..Pre-emptive nuclear strike (i.e. First Strike) was much discussed during the Cold War. It was found to be quite an intriguing concept by the deviant psychopaths drawing scenarios with millions of deaths in the Nat'l Security Council. Now the Cold War is over and we don't have to deal with messy nukes no more; so pre-emptive conventional warfare is most definitely here to stay.

[brad]

israel publicly stated theyre gonna start sending asassination squads into the US; should we invade israel too? (also israel along with china is #1 purveyor of nuclear tech.)