ha ha faa_Q Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Hey - I´m not going to bother replying with quotes, or this thread´s going to be longer than Selma Hayek´s legs (yum). Countries like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, or any other one that sees the U.S. as a threat, whether or not it´s Senegal, Uzbekistan, Pago Pago, etc. (not to say these countries do - I´m only citing them for illustration) realize that the U.S. is capable of mobilizing all its forces and bombing any square inch of the world in only a week. In order for a country to compete with that kind of army, they would need to build one of that size, and that would take an impossibly long time and require unavailable resources. Their only alternative is to build weapons of mass destruction. This has already begun and will not cease any time soon. Saddam may or may not have the capability to deliver WMDs on anything other than a regional scale. I doubt he does because of the logistical difficulties in doing so. In any case, the American people (and people of the world) will never know, because if the U.S. government releases information regarding its knowledge of the development and proliferation of such weapons, its sources will be compromised. The only thing it can do is share the information it has with the intelligence experts of its allies in an attempt to convince them that war is necessary. So far, this has not been the case. If France doesn´t buy it, then they don´t buy it - that doesn´t matter. If Germany does´t buy it, then maybe there´s a reason why. But if France, Germany, Russia and China aren´t convinced, then there´s probably a lack of condemning evidence on the part of the CIA that needs to be addressed before an invasion is commenced. I´m also still not convinced that Saddam will continue to remain in power, even after an invasion. I was in Incirlik the last time that the U.S. was having problems with Saddam (the air force sent two F-15s every morning at 4,5,6, and 7 am Turkish time to fly over Baghdad and wake hime up with a few sonic booms), and I talked to a colonel there to ask him why Saddam is still behind the wheel. He basically said that they admitted to having tried to oust him, but it wasn´t that easy. He said that people don´t understand how difficult it is to get to him, and that he´s surrounded by many, many people who are willing to die for him (many of whom look like him). If getting to him were easy, Americans probably would have done so the first time, because George Sr. could have considered it to be the greatest possible outcome in the war. I have a hard time believing that the U.S. didn´t do so because it wasn´t one of their primary objectives - that sort of thing is most easily said after a failed attempt at doing so. There´s a book I read a while back called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, which basically discusses the rise in cultural influence of the Muslim community and the substantial increase in economic strength of Asian markets with regard to the decline in the influence of Western civilizations. One of the quotes in the book sums it up beautifully - "Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world." Anyway, I´m exhausted :p . You´ve got some good points, Phil, which you address wonderfully. -- Jimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.