Part of the problem with the whole "axis of evil" concept is that no direct connection has been clearly shown between those evil hijackers and any of the states that make up the axis.
Point noted.
I have not seen anybody explaining what the Iranian, North Korean, or Iraqi governments are doing that makes them any more evil than, say, the governments of Somalia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, or any number of others.
The US gov't claims they are working on chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
I have seen no convincing argument supporting the notion that they pose enough of a threat to the US to justify the expense and messiness of war.
If a leaky Liberian registered freighter pulls into NY harbor and explodes a 50 kiloton bomb, will that change your mind?
Do we have to wait for that to happen?
Remember the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? They're not parties, but the concept behind it still seems like a good idea.
I would have a difficult time extending that support to action against Iraq, unless some much better cause is shown and unless a cost/benefit calculation is clearly advantageous.
Chemical. Biological. Nuclear.
Given the current demographic and power balance in Iraq, the people that look most likely to fill a power vacuum are the fundamentalist Shiites in the south, and their ascension to power would hardly serve our interests.
This has been raised. I have not heard a good answer yet. I'll bet if we had an army parked in Baghdad for a couple of years, we could find one though. Remember Germany, WWII, Marshall Plan, etc? |
