Our government seems to be telling us that if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denies having weapons of mass destruction, while we know he does have them, that falsehood becomes a material breach of Iraq's agreement, and reason to take Saddam Hussein out militarily. But if Saddam Hussein admits to having such weapons, he stands convicted out of his own mouth and therefore we have no choice but to take him out.
This is a confused interpretation of the requirement. The disclosure required by Iraq was tantamount to an amnesty. He could disclose his possession of EVERY WMD he had, and retain his position. But ANY failure to do so constitutes a material breach. So, at this point, the question is whether he lied in the disclosure. It has been determined that he did by Hans Blix. The question now is how much leaway we (the UN) wish to give him.
("We know he's got those weapons of mass destruction," satirist Mark Russell explained the other day. "We've got the receipts!")
This is an okay point for a satirist; however, it is totally without relevance in any serious discussion. These relationships change over time, and we had a much bigger enemy in the neighborhood at the time. This is, simply put, a liberal smokescreen.
it hopelessly cynical to imagine that democratization is a much lower priority than controlling Iraqi oil reserves
How are WE going to control Iraqi oil reserves? Those oil reserves belong to the Iraqi people. Is this nitwit suggesting we're going to STEAL the damned oil?
But is he such an imminent threat to the United States as to justify our unilateral military action against him?
The answer to this question is obvious. One need only look so far as North Korea to fully comprehend the stakes. Our options with respect to NK are now extremely limited because the previous administration chose to APPEASE NK. Now, NK can, in the span of an hour, be lobbing Bio/Chem weapons into Seoul SK, killing millions. Or worse, a nuke. Now, we are extremely limited in out options.
The people who have criticized Bush for being less assertive with NK than with Iraq don't seem to comprehend this most simple of concepts: The day a belligerent foreign power gets nuclear capability, the entire dynamic of our relationship with them must change. Suddenly, in one instant, they move from a nation that can be controlled to one that, in a dictatorship, concentrates immense power in the hands of one individual. |
