IBD: Does Saddam present a real threat to the U.S. or to the region?
Wilson: I think it is legitimate to consider his active pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions poses a potential threat, but neither is the threat imminent nor - with the exception of the potential nuclear threat - is the current threat a threat to our vital national security.
Len... interesting article, but I don't believe many people in the Bush administration reasonably perceive Saddam as an IMMEDIATE threat to the US.. But what is at stake is that, should Saddam obtain Nuclear capability, he will effectively be able to shelter his despotic regime behind a nuclear shield and use the political leverage holding such weapons evokes into increasing his influence amongst Arab regimes...
Thus, a nuclear armed Saddam is a threat to not only the US, but also current Arab governments who would be required to kow-tow to his agenda... And that's just not something that is in the world's interests if we're going to modernize and develop that part of the world.
IBD: Your recommendation for action?
Wilson: We should continue to pursue the political consensus behind the inspection regime, and that we invest the inspection regime with the zero tolerance that the president has spoken about.
And Mr. Wilson neglects to mention that the only reason UN inspectors are even in Iraq right now is because of US threats to implement a unilateral policy..
And the fact that Blix and the UNSC is trying to take the path of least resistance with regard to the inspection process, and not really displaying any interest in finding such weapons that we know he has (as per the 1998 UNSCOM report), means the US has to FURTHER threaten to act unilaterally in order to merely GET THE UN TO DO IT'S JOB!!!
Again.. there would be no inspectors in Iraq right without US unilateralism and threats of regime change...
In the event that Saddam Hussein begins to play his usual cheat-and-retreat games, we should be prepared to use military force in an incident-specific fashion in order to maintain the focus on disarmament and to mitigate against the really negative possibility of having to go in there and occupy and decapitate the regime. That should be truly our last option.
What does this guy think we've been doing for the past 12 years?? "Incident-specific" fashion my @ss... US planes are being shot at nearly every day... How much more "incident specific" can one be???
The only way that Israel's security is going to be enhanced is by finding a lasting solution to the Palestinian problem that takes this war off people's television sets every night.
And who has an interest in committing atrocities against civilians through suicide bombings and bus attacks in order to keep it "in the news"?? The Palestinians..
My belief is that once the media stops trying to take sides in this struggle, and acting as pansies for either side, they will both be forced to negotiate. But the more the media hypes up the struggle in an effort to capture the daily headlines, the parties (primarily the terrorists) will have an incentive to continue to commit their deliberate atrocities against civilians.
Hawk |
