Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: Michael Wise <no@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:19:35 GMT
In article <1130620217.976560.266590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, all of which the U.S. knew about and took no action (diplomatic,
economic, or military) while is was happening. We didn't care about the
Kurds getting gassed in the 80's, but it sure makes for a convenient
retroactive reason for action now.
Why is that?
> 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.
So when will you be leading the alpha strikes against Iran and N. Korea?
--Mike
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: leadfoot
- 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
- Re: OT Kerry was right
- From: Ed Rasimus
- OT Kerry was right
- Prev by Date: Re: New Air Force Religion Guidelines May Restrict Evangelism
- Next by Date: Re: EC-121R
- Previous by thread: Re: OT Kerry was right
- Next by thread: Re: OT Kerry was right
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|