Ymir wrote:
Finally a good and reasonable argument, although i haven't mentioned nuclear weapons at all. Of course Saddam Hussien with nuclear weapons would represent a great threath to the world, but i try to see thing in a wider perspective, and with some morale. And that's why i can't se why the US should be allowed to have weapons noone else are allowed to have, except for some brainwashed democracys in Europe and states that noone dares to twarth (China, for instance). Of course, now, the US would never launch a nuclear strike. But in 25 years, how knows what the world will look like? And what in hell gives the US the right to judge Saddam Hussein, when international councils whose authority US itself has accepted (like UN) denies them that right?
- Ymir, still wondering.
The US would never launch a nuclear strike against another nuclear-armed State unless fired upon first. I never said anything about employing nuclear devices against non-nuclear States. The problem with them in that case is that in an age of minimal casualty warfare, they're giant hammers which break lots of eggs. However, if a country used bio or chem, there would probably be a tactical nuclear response against their military units in the field.
I don't know why you minimize the nuclear power of France, Britain, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc - These States all have notable influence because of it. France will remain a regional power with some diplomatic influence of note even if the security council is dissolute, because of a nuclear arsenal and a carrier battle group, for example. The USA may be the penultimate force but it does not have total dominance over all nations on Earth - And so areas of counter-influence exist, as they always have.
We're not judging Saddam Hussein - We're just responding to a violation in a cease-fire. And we're a waging a war which is thus being resumed because the cease-fire has been violated. Our basic assumption in removing Saddam is that the cease-fire will not be obeyed unless his regime is removed from the country, and a democracy is installed. This is the military action necessary to make Iraq obey the cease-fire.
The U.N. equation on the second resolution is irrelevant - 1441 mentioned "serious consequences", and the violation of the cease-fire
existed prior to 1441. Furthermore, the cease-fire was
done under U.N. auspices. So the approval already existed, and indeed existed even prior to 1441 - Which was why, for that matter, Clinton could threaten Iraq as he did after the withdrawal of the Inspectors.
)