Good points, Sam. There clearly is inconsistency, IMO, that points to a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda is that much of the Islamic world is assumed by many to be higher risk for the destructive use of these weapons. I also feel that is the hidden agenda is slowing Turkey's entrance into the Common Market. Given Halabja, Hama, the killing of thousands of Algerians by the Muslim brotherhood, and many attacks similar to those conducted in the West years ago (in fact, in 1937-'45), these fears are not without basis. Most of the Islamic governments are not as stable as those of the west. One current Islamic trend, represented by Bin Ladin and the positive reception in the Islamic world to 9/11, leads me to share these concerns. I would feel the same way if many Latin American countries had WMD only 25 yrs ago.
Also, I agree with your main point, that we should be eliminating all these threats to the safety of the planet. Until 9/11, I really thought we were. In fact, I was stupid enough to feel the breaking of the Berlin wall was a watershed, and that world tension would be followed by world trade.
I am not an apologist for the US. I agree with the post you cited that the US encouraged Saddam against Iran. Pinochet against Allende, etc. My main thrust is that I want the Saddam's of the world to know they are accountable to international law. I think the agenda of Saddam's threat to the world deflects attention from his crimes.
fred |
