Hi carranza2; Re: "Do not expect to see Iraq attack anyone in the near future."
I agree completely. So does most of the world. That's why they're not in favor of our attacking Iraq. I agree with this.
If we attacked every nation that was working on "weapons of mass destruction", we'd have to take on the whole f'ing civilized world, including ourselves. That doesn't make sense as a foreign policy. What makes sense is to attack countries that are attacking or threatening to attack other countries. Right now, Iraq is not one of these. Neither is North Korea (the starving hordes).
China is developing weapons of mass destruction and so is France and Great Britain. We're not attacking any of them because they're not threatening to attack anyone.
Examples of more or less moral wars:
Afghanistan, through their refusal to police Osama bin Laden, attacked us, killing thousands, and we fought back. In the Gulf war, Iraq attacked Kuwait and we fought back. In WW2, Germany attacked Poland and Great Britain fought back. In Korea, the North Koreans attacked South Korea and we fought back. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese attacked South Vietnam and we fought back, unsuccessfully. In WW2, the Japanese attacked us and we fought back. In WW1, the Germans sank our passenger ships and we fought back. In the Civil war, the Confederacy attacked US forts and we fought back. In the war of 1812, the British attacked our shipping and we fought back. In the Mexican American War, the Mexicans attacked our territory (Texas) and we fought back. In the Spanish American War, the Spanish blew up (maybe) our ship and we fought back. In the Indian Wars, the Indians attacked our settlers and we fought back. In the Tripolitan conflict, the "pirates" attacked our shipping and we fought back. In the Quasi war with France, the French attacked our ships and we fought back.
We do not go around starting major conflicts without reasons. We're not going to attack Iraq.
-- Carl |
