Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: "Ed Rasimus" <rasimus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2005 14:10:18 -0700
It would be hard to discount assertions that Saddam had WMD in light of
the Osirak development almost twenty years earlier. Iraq had been in
pursuit of nukes even then. To think that because the Israeli AF
bloodied their nose they would then give up on the idea forever doesn't
seem prudent.
And, there's the little matter of actual employment of chemical weapons
(they are WMD as well) by Iraq both against Iran and against the Kurds
in the north. If we've got a credible history of willingness to develop
and use chemical weapons, we could reasonably assume continued
predilection.
And, keep in mind that while nuclear weapons require some degree of
infrastructure to produce, the Iranians and N. Koreans are a good case
in point that the infrastructure can be hidden.
And, let's concede (hopefully) that chemical and biological weapons
take much less infrastructure. Bio can be ginned up in a basement or
garage (can you say "meth lab") and chemical can be hidden in plain
sight in the case of binaries.
But, none of that fits the world view of the Bush haters.
Can a modern developed nation take the risk of absorbing a first strike
by terrorists armed with chem, bio or a suitcase nuke? The idea of
withholding pre-emption until after absorbing the first strike is one
which has outlived its utility.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: Paul J. Adam
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: Michael Wise
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- References:
- OT Kerry was right
- From: leadfoot
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: George Z. Bush
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: Steven P. McNicoll
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: George Z. Bush
- OT Kerry was right
- Prev by Date: Re: Sir Frank Whittle
- Next by Date: Re: "U.S. toll in Iraq hits 2,000"
- Previous by thread: Re: OT Kerry was right
- Next by thread: Re: OT Kerry was right
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|