Colonel Olrik wrote:Coyote wrote:Funny... France wants to stay out of the Iraq war ...
When America wanted to stay out of World War Two ...
The scaling is quite different. The third reich and allies had conquered most Europe, Asia and Africa and was on his way to conquer the rest. They were proven murders and their regime a visible risk to all democratic countries.
While it is true that the scaling is different, the truths behind it remain valid. The Hussein regime has killed hundreds of thousands or maybe a couple million at most, rather than the tens of millions of deaths caused by the Nazis.
But suffering is relative-- I cannot go to a Shi'ite or Kurd in Iraq (or a Hutu in Rwanda, or a Magyar in China, etc) and say "chill out, you only lost 100,000 people. Call us when it reaches six millions, that's the international benchmark for concern."
Colonel Olrik wrote:Iraq is insignificant. It invaded a very small country, once, and got spanked for it. It is basically teethless, now. Most people don't see them as a giant threat. ...I don't fear [Saddam], or any arab nation for that matter, invading my country.
Well, remember, that Iraq also not only invaded Iran but used gas in the attempt, and the atrocities against his own people are well documented also. And let's face it, his Scud attacks on Israel show that he is willing and able to reach out to his neighbors and cause damage. While I recognize the issues the Arab world has with Israel, legitimate or otherwise, Iraq had little justification for doing that.
If we let him develop unimpeded, he may well become a threat to others, whether Israel or anyone else. I think his past actions have demonstrated that he is a danger; it's not like he just erupted on the scene one day after years of peaceful living. And a toothless Saddam may be more tempted to hand out (or "accidentally loose track of") other WMDs so that radical groups will carry out his will for him. International attacks can be carried off without neccessarily being a prelude to an invasion, terrorism being an obvious one.
The only nation capable of doing that would be the U.S, and I know that, deep down, you guys love us
*
Portugal, right? (Checks list) Yeah, you guys are all right. Seriously, no American in his right mind, even the most rabid among us, want to take and keep any part of the Middle East. It would be a long, slow suicide. If we really wanted to take Iraq and keep it for ourselves, and the oil, trust me we would have done it 12 years ago when the world backed us up and saw us as heroes. We could have done damn near anything we pleased back then.
But now we see Saddam: an angry, warlike man, with a proven history of unwarranted aggression, with gallons of blood on his hands, who has openly used and developed weapons of mass destruction against soldiers and civilians alike. He actually presents a more obvious, recognizable, and coherent threat than Hitler did-- Hitler was far more sly about hiding his motives.
Many in America really do see a clear line between Resolution 1441 and the Versailles Treaty, and Chirac and Chamberlain. While many think that Europe is being weak, I understand the concerns-- refugees, war near the backyard, terrorism, etc-- I and many others feel that it would be irresponsible to let him sit and fester. One Iraq with three or four nukes, well, maybe it can be brushed aside.
But will Europe feel the same way when Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do some test-detonating and developing missiles? Once one Arab regime has them, they will all need them for "parity" and then think of just ten or twelve nuclear-tipped missiles sitting in Libya or Syria, in a decade? Is nuclear proliferation really such a great choice?
Or this: One crazy Muslim Brotherhood type guy siezing control of a nuclear-capable Arab regime. Five nukes will eradicate Israel. The rest of the world will come down on him like a ton of bricks, but waht does he care? He will live in history as the guy that "eliminated the infidels forever" and went down fighting the "crusaders' counter-attack". He'll die as a "heroic martyr" and be a spiritual light to the fanatics of the world. And it cannot be denied that suicide attacks are standard operating proceedure down there.
Any counter-attack would probably also be met with Arab nukes... but what else can be done? We can't let a leader who has done that sit and do nothing. What does that say to others, sitting on their own stockpiles? To the Pakistanis and Indians? They can nuke as they please and the West will do nothing out of fear?
Follow the paths to its logical conclusion-- letting Saddam go unimpeded will set a very, very bad precedent and leaving us with much bigger messes to clean up tomorrow. Best to get him now, before he has this capability.
