Jim
"After the aggression on Iraq, do you think any other country would willingly give up their arsenal of WMD?"
Yes, of course. First of all, the first and foremost reason for the US's intervention in Iraq was that they had those weapons to begin with. Take away those weapons you take away the US motivation for preemptive military action.
Furthermore, the Arab countries of the region get something back in return for a WMD ban. The destruction of any WMD weapons that Israel possesses, which if rumor is true includes nuclear weapons, something which the Arab nations of the region do not possess.
Lastly, do you really believe that Arab possession of WMD weapons is going to deter the US from a preemptive strike? That theory didn't work in the Iraq War. Why would it work someplace else?
Also, my reply to your comment:
"they [WMD's]... too serve as a deterrent from US attacks. Case in point, N.Korea."
Sorry, but picking North Korea as an example is a major faux pas. North Korea's original argument was exactly the same point that you're trying to make. They claimed that US aggression was justification to maintain nuclear weapons.
However, something funny happened to their view. They changed it! Within a few days of the end of the Iraq War. North Korea decided to change their hard stand on negotiations and finally agreed to multi-lateral talks with the US and other countries of the region. The North Koreans realized that even with the threat of nuclear weapons they would lose a military conflict. Here's a link:
Message 18846167 |
