Buh-buh-buh-but what about NYC?
I'm often guilty of over-simplifying things if I feel like the "bottom line" can be made more clear, but sometimes over-simplification mis-defines things and causes poor decisions.
Elsewhere a writer declared that my posture concerned the use of violence (especially military might) only for defense meant that I thought we should wait until Saddam nuked NYC to act.
Iraq's desire for WMD's did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. They had no delivery system to threaten NYC. Trying to make the leap that Hussein was in the process of laying waste an American city is an act of rhetorical gymnastics. If he COULD have, he probably wouldn't have anyway. Hussein was a local bully, and as such knew better than to pick on anyone his own "size" or bigger.
People have had an hysterical reaction to 9/11 that rationalizes any threat anywhere as a threat here. Iran is more of a threat ... in their region ... than Iraq was, but, again, they don't have a delivery system to jeopardize the U.S. If that changes, and they make noises about attacking America ... that is a different situation to the one in Iraq in 2003.
I approve of Mr. Bush's verbal concept of preemption ... but only if the danger being thwarted is realistic. It's possible that Korea might find a giant radioactive dinosaur hibernating in the deep waters nearby and waken it to go rampaging through NYC, but the odds are ridiculously slim.
Terrorism is a genuine threat, and not just to NYC. In order to curry favor with locals and to keep attention away from his antics, Saddam lent a hand to terrorists migrating through his turf, but his regime was not involved in active threats against the U.S. (There ARE links between Saddam and 9/11, surprisingly, but they are not causative.)
Iraq was not a direct threat to American lives and sovereignty. He was a threat to his neighbors, and had loose associations with 9/11 people. His tenuous relation did not justify the full-scale military invasion of his nation.
Anyone believing otherwise has spent too long at the sugar teat of mainstream American media propaganda.
Elsewhere a writer declared that my posture concerned the use of violence (especially military might) only for defense meant that I thought we should wait until Saddam nuked NYC to act.
Iraq's desire for WMD's did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. They had no delivery system to threaten NYC. Trying to make the leap that Hussein was in the process of laying waste an American city is an act of rhetorical gymnastics. If he COULD have, he probably wouldn't have anyway. Hussein was a local bully, and as such knew better than to pick on anyone his own "size" or bigger.
People have had an hysterical reaction to 9/11 that rationalizes any threat anywhere as a threat here. Iran is more of a threat ... in their region ... than Iraq was, but, again, they don't have a delivery system to jeopardize the U.S. If that changes, and they make noises about attacking America ... that is a different situation to the one in Iraq in 2003.
I approve of Mr. Bush's verbal concept of preemption ... but only if the danger being thwarted is realistic. It's possible that Korea might find a giant radioactive dinosaur hibernating in the deep waters nearby and waken it to go rampaging through NYC, but the odds are ridiculously slim.
Terrorism is a genuine threat, and not just to NYC. In order to curry favor with locals and to keep attention away from his antics, Saddam lent a hand to terrorists migrating through his turf, but his regime was not involved in active threats against the U.S. (There ARE links between Saddam and 9/11, surprisingly, but they are not causative.)
Iraq was not a direct threat to American lives and sovereignty. He was a threat to his neighbors, and had loose associations with 9/11 people. His tenuous relation did not justify the full-scale military invasion of his nation.
Anyone believing otherwise has spent too long at the sugar teat of mainstream American media propaganda.
posted by Author | 11:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home