mr. k
Registered
I just wanted to start a general discussion on the seemingly forthcoming US war aginst Iraq. This seemed like a good forum to post it, there is a varied international community that will have interesting views on what the others have to say.
I think that the disarming of Iraq is important, but I can't see a good outcome coming from the war. In the inspection reports read by Hans Blix the other day, he said there was little found except for a few missiles not capable of reaching very far and unmanned aircraft. I believe Iraq is in the process of destroying the missiles.
But let's assume two extreme positions: that Iraq is a) in posession/development of no weapons whatsoever or b) in aggressive delevopment and posession of weapons of mass destruction. Either way, if the US does invade Iraq, either a) the only outcome of the bloodshed is a regime change (democracy would not be bad, but would would it take to establish? I will talk about that later) and there would be loss of life on both sides. But if there is a remote proximity to situation b), and Iraq is in fact hiding and developing harmful weapons there could be a devestating fight in Iraq, followed by massive retaliation by the US. I know sometimes war becomes neccessary, but I don't think it is here. I think potential risks outwiegh benefits.
And why is the White House going after a failing, comparitevly weak regime when countries like N. Korea, Pakistan, and India also are known to have Nuclear weapons? N. Korea's cult-like national attitude and militaristic attitude seems too much like Japan's before world war 2. Pakistan has been distributing nukes to other nations and who knows what else.
I say do with Iraq what the US did with Stalin and Soviet Russia... Let it die. There are other, younger threats emerging that should be dealt with.
I think that the disarming of Iraq is important, but I can't see a good outcome coming from the war. In the inspection reports read by Hans Blix the other day, he said there was little found except for a few missiles not capable of reaching very far and unmanned aircraft. I believe Iraq is in the process of destroying the missiles.
But let's assume two extreme positions: that Iraq is a) in posession/development of no weapons whatsoever or b) in aggressive delevopment and posession of weapons of mass destruction. Either way, if the US does invade Iraq, either a) the only outcome of the bloodshed is a regime change (democracy would not be bad, but would would it take to establish? I will talk about that later) and there would be loss of life on both sides. But if there is a remote proximity to situation b), and Iraq is in fact hiding and developing harmful weapons there could be a devestating fight in Iraq, followed by massive retaliation by the US. I know sometimes war becomes neccessary, but I don't think it is here. I think potential risks outwiegh benefits.
And why is the White House going after a failing, comparitevly weak regime when countries like N. Korea, Pakistan, and India also are known to have Nuclear weapons? N. Korea's cult-like national attitude and militaristic attitude seems too much like Japan's before world war 2. Pakistan has been distributing nukes to other nations and who knows what else.
I say do with Iraq what the US did with Stalin and Soviet Russia... Let it die. There are other, younger threats emerging that should be dealt with.
