Bush says UN can help stop spread of nuclear weapons. How serious is he?

[*d*]

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/02/11/bush_nuclear040211
--U.S. President George W. Bush said the fight against terrorism would be greatly helped if the United Nations would limit the number of countries allowed to make and sell nuclear technology.--

It sounds like Bush has good intentions, but how serious is he in saying that he's looking for help from the UN to stop the spread of nuclear weapons? All last year Syria also has been calling on the UN for the same thing. In Dec/03 and only a few days before it’s term as a UN Security Council member expired, Syria presented a draft resolution to the UN asking for a complete WMD-free zone in the middle east. The draft was backed by Iran and the 22 member Arab league.

http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20031230/449_11592.asp
--Syrian Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said a Middle East WMD-free zone "should be at the top of the agenda of the international community." He added, "This is a very crucial issue in the Middle East, and I think once we achieve it, we shall have a further step in solving …… complicated problems in a very sensitive region."
With inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Iran and Libya determining the nuclear weapons capabilities of those countries, Mekdad said, "Recent interest shown by members of the Security Council …… encouraged us to come to the council before we leave to put the issue [forward]."
The draft "emphasizes" the role of the council "in adopting a global approach to countering the spread of all [WMD] in the countries of the Middle East without exception" and calls on the states in the region to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Some Arab states, including Syria, are not parties to all of the latter three conventions, but Israel is the only country in the region outside of the NPT. "It is applicable to everybody, but in fact Israel is the real [issue], whether we like it or not, because Israel has all these kinds of weapons," said Mekdad.--

You would think after Bush’s speech today, he would be happy to indorse such a UN resolution. But I doubt if Syria’s draft will ever see the light of day. If it does come to a vote, it will most likely be vetoed by the US simply because the US has a symbiotic, and yet, hypocritical foreign relation with Israel. After all, Israel still hasn’t lived up to UN resolution 687(a nuclear weapon free mid-east) and with no pressure from the US. So is Bush serious when he says he wants the UN involved in limiting nuclear weapons?

 

[gramage]

when Dubya scales down America's nuclear arsenal then I'll listen to him about containing the technology.

 

[Manji]

Oh he is deadly serious.
He just wants the title of "Nuclear Super Power" all to himself.

It is no fun if the other kids on the block have the same cool toys.

 

[90's sc vet]

when Dubya scales down America's nuclear arsenal then I'll listen to him about containing the technology.

The US and USSR had a peak nuclear weapons total of about 50,000 warheads and I think they're both down to about 6000 now. The limiting factor is Russia's ability to disassemble the warheads, which the US is paying for. I always found that an astounding thing, Russian warheads being taken apart in the US, the ultimate symbol that the Cold War had truly ended.

There is no doubt that what the US wants is nuclear weapons only in the hands of nations that can be trusted not to use them except under the most extreme *defensive* conditions.

I agree that Israel should do what South Africa did and unilaterally give up its nuclear warheads.

However, I'd also gladly accept Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea giving up their nuclear weapons, even if Israel kept theirs. I don't think anyone would disagree that if that were to happen, the world would be a safer place.

You'd have to be insane to allow Pakistan and India, two countries who have fought wars in the recent past, to continue to have nuclear weapons just because Israel continues to have them.

Fewer nuclear weapons in the world is better, so start by persuading the countries with the lowest threshold for using them to give them up.

The US and Russia have already disassembled 90% of the weapons that they used to have, why not get the rest of the world to agree to do the same thing?

Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and nothing has happened. But what do you think would have happened if bin Laden had had a nuclear bomb on 9/11? That's the difference between Israel having nuclear bombs and al Qaeda. That's the reality Bush is facing and he wants to do something about it.

So is Bush serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons? Just think about the above question and anyone would agree that he is.

Do you want al Qaeda to get nuclear weapons? Do you want North Korea to sell nuclear bombs to anyone who can pay cash up front? If I had to choose between allowing the US and Israel to have nuclear weapons and no one else, I'd make that choice in a heartbeat.

 

[*d*]

90's sc vet
Unfortunately, the US is moving to further its proliferation of nuclear weapons as it pursues bunker-buster mini nukes and other nuclear weapon programs. And since the US is a party of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty(NPT), that puts them in material breach of that treaty. In Bush's speech yesterday he threatened those non-nuclear weapons states who may try to pursue nuclear technology. This also goes against the very principles behind the NPT. Each party member to the treaty must negotiate in good faith for effective disarmament measures and they must assure non-nuclear members that nuclear weapons will not be a threat. Nuclear strong party members can not blatantly threaten non-nuclear members. It only increases unrest. As Israel is doing in the middle east.
Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) said recently that the world must drop the idea that nuclear weapons are fine in the hands of some countries and bad in the hands of others.
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security -- and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use," he said.
I agree with him. The world would not be a safer place if the US and Israel were allowed to pursue nuclear weapons and other countries were not. All countries should join the NPT.

 

[90's sc vet]

Unfortunately, the US is moving to further its proliferation of nuclear weapons as it pursues bunker-buster mini nukes and other nuclear weapon programs. And since the US is a party of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty(NPT), that puts them in material breach of that treaty.

States that already have nuclear weapons that have signed the NPT are allowed to develop and build nuclear weapons.

That's the entire idea of that treaty, *non proliferation* means no *other* states are allowed to develop nuclear weapons but there are no restrictions on the states that already have them.

In Bush's speech yesterday he threatened those non-nuclear weapons states who may try to pursue nuclear technology. This also goes against the very principles behind the NPT.

The US is enforcing the treaty with threats, no different than the police threatening to arrest criminals who break the law. How else can a treaty be enforced if not by threats? Besides, what's wrong with the US threatening North Korea or Iran to get them to give up their nuclear weapons? Those threats worked to persuade South Africa and Libya to halt their nuclear programs. Is there anything wrong with that? IMO, those were major victories for the NPT and the US was responsible for those good things happening.

The world would not be a safer place if the US and Israel were allowed to pursue nuclear weapons and other countries were not. All countries should join the NPT. [/B]

This is where we totally disagree. I'm amazed that you think that if only the US and Israel had nuclear weapons the world wouldn't be safer. If that were the case, North Korea, Russian, China, England, France, India, Pakistan would no longer have nuclear bombs, something like 5000 atomic bombs would be disassembled. How can that possibly not lead to a safer world?

How can you justify the idea that the world would not be safer if Pakistan and India were to get rid of their nuclear weapons? Those countries have had shooting wars, Pakistan has openly admitted that they have a first use policy for nuclear weapons in case of another war with India.

But I'd like you to answer my main criticism of your position, that if al Qaeda had had a nuclear bomb on 9/11, they would have used it. Bush is trying to prevent that from happening, which to me, is an extremely good thing.

What you seem to be saying is that because the US isn't pressuring Israel to get rid of their weapons, somehow Bush's attempt to further limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not authentic. I totally disagree with that idea. Any attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a good idea to me and what Bush is doing is meant to do only one thing, make the world safer.

Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists or the states who support terrorists cannot do anything but make the world safer for everyone, regardless of whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons.

 

[Kathy P]

I agree with the poster who said I'll take Bush separately when he gets rid of his. All the talk that goes on globally is just that, talk. Every one with any concern for military might has nuclear capabilities not withstanding their media relations rhetoric.

What I think is particularly hypocritical is Bush going to the U.N. for anything. He proved with the war in Iraq that he does not respect or abide by anything the U.N. suggests. His is cowboy diplomacy - I'll ask you nice and if you don't do what I want I'll shoot you in the foot (or worse)................

 

[Kathy P]

That should have been seriously not separately! Ha, time to put on my glasses.

 

[Ranger68]

when Dubya scales down America's nuclear arsenal then I'll listen to him about containing the technology.

Well, to be fair, gramage, and not to necessarily defend the American, or rather Bush's position in any way, America's nuclear arsenal has been DRASTICALLY cut down over the last decade or so. Of course, when you had enough nuclear weapons to obviate the very reason for having them in the first place ......

I would say, however, it's fair to say that the US has not abandoned its nuclear program, and may or may not be in breach of the spirit of the NPT, so feel free to have at them, if you will.

 

[90's sc vet]

What I think is particularly hypocritical is Bush going to the U.N. for anything. He proved with the war in Iraq that he does not respect or abide by anything the U.N. suggests. [/B]

But Bush went to the UN several times to try to get their approval and failed.

What really bothers me is that it was the US that was the target, not any other country. So one country is at risk, every other country suffers no risk, so you're saying that the US isn't allowed to defend itself when it thinks it's national survival is at stake?

But what I really don't understand is why liberals are so against what the US did in Iraq. Hussein, a dictator who led a party based on Nazi principles (the Baath party was started at the same time as the end of Nazi party, see what Bernard Lewis had to say about Hussein) and who regarded Stalin as a role model, ran a murderous dictatorship that used poison gas on its own citizens.

The US took him out and is trying to create a liberal democracy in Iraq. Why would any liberal who is in favour of democracy and human rights be against that? And why did the UN, surely a body in favour of human rights and freedom, vote against the US?

As a liberal, what principle are you defending when you defend Hussein's right to continue as a murderous dictactor?

I've never seen an answer given to that question and I'm genuinely curious to find out what basic liberal principle is being advanced in the case of the UN's opposition to what happened in Iraq.

 

[gramage]

because the idea of a preemptive warfare with only vauge assurances scares the hell out of me, especially since the "justification" has been completely discredited, although if you ask Dubya now he WMD's and them being a threat to America was never the point to begin with. Now it's just "he was a madman" which considering Canada's track record of PM's, means we should start practicing our duck and cover technique.

 

[90's sc vet]

because the idea of a preemptive warfare with only vauge assurances scares the hell out of me, especially since the "justification" has been completely discredited, although if you ask Dubya now he WMD's and them being a threat to America was never the point to begin with. Now it's just "he was a madman" which considering Canada's track record of PM's, means we should start practicing our duck and cover technique.

I agree, the preemptive strike doctrine scares me too.

But you have to remember that 9/11 occurred under the old non preemptive doctrine and what happened on 9/11 scares me even more.

You have to honestly answer the central question about 9/11, that if you had known about 9/11 before it happened, would you have agreed to preemptively attack the Taliban to stop it? I would have.

You only have to listen to Bush and Rice to understand what they were afraid of. Hussein had used poison gas on his own people, he was known to have produced WMD, what would have stopped him from supplying WMD to al Qaeda? As a responsible government official, how could Bush take the chance that NYC or Washington would have been annilihated in a WMD attack, as easily could have happened on 9/11?

That's the thing that liberals always want to ignore, everything Bush and the US does today is done with 9/11 in mind. The US will do almost anything to prevent another 9/11 or worse from happening again. I don't see anything wrong with that, a country ought to be allowed to defend itself and not be forced to take the first hit, as occurred on 9/11.

BTW, given Hussein's record as a murderous dictactor, don't you believe he was a madman, or at least a psychopath?

 

[gramage]

the Taliban wasn't responsible for 9/11. al qaeda was. the Taliban was attacked afterwards because they were allowing al qaeda free reign in their country. so a preemptive war wouldn't have changed anything, only an assault on a group of terrorists would have which is not a war against a country. the US claims they have to fight differently now in the war on terrorism which is true but their actually doing the same thing they always did, and it's not helping protect Americans. the increased border and air security is, but the war outwards on terror is doing more harm then good long term.

 

[90's sc vet]

the Taliban wasn't responsible for 9/11. al qaeda was. the Taliban was attacked afterwards because they were allowing al qaeda free reign in their country. so a preemptive war wouldn't have changed anything, only an assault on a group of terrorists would have which is not a war against a country. the US claims they have to fight differently now in the war on terrorism which is true but their actually doing the same thing they always did, and it's not helping protect Americans. the increased border and air security is, but the war outwards on terror is doing more harm then good long term.

I absolutely disagree. You're saying that al Qaeda had freedom to operate in Afghanistan and that a preemptive strike on their bases wouldn't have prevented 9/11? Sure, if the strike had occurred in 9/10, the 9/11 attacks would have proceeded. But I think it's a real stretch to say that had the US attacked in August or July and recovered the information they did after taking out the Taliban, they wouldn't have had a chance to disrupt al Qaeda's plans.

What the US did in Afghanistan has clearly worked, at least so far. After the US removed the Taliban, there haven't been any further attacks on US soil.

What's wrong with that? If a preemptive strike had occurred against the Taliban after the attack on the USS Cole, or after the first WTC attack in 1993, are you truly trying to argue that 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented? I find that position untenable.

That's exactly what appeasers have always said. Are you saying that the US and USSR were wrong in attacking the Nazis? That somehow, by defeating the Nazis, world security has diminished? Or that the US, in fighting against communism and finally defeating it, somehow made the world a worse place? I doubt that many Russians would agree with you, or very many Germans either.

BTW, just what is your opinion about Hussein? Do you think leaving a madman in charge of an entire state is a good idea?

 

[*d*]

States that already have nuclear weapons that have signed the NPT are allowed to develop and build nuclear weapons.

That's the entire idea of that treaty, *non proliferation* means no *other* states are allowed to develop nuclear weapons but there are no restrictions on the states that already have them.

No!!! The NPT places many restrictions on nuclear weapon member states. The US is in breach of 'Article VI' and the 'Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament' of the NPT.
--NPT, Article VI.
Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.--
--Principles & Objectives for Nuclear Disarmament.
The determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapons States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.--
The US no longer supports the Anti-ballistic missile Treaty and the Test ban treaty, 2 of the 13 practical steps to implement disarmament and Article VI. This means they are no longer proceeding in 'good faith' required by Article VI.
The US is in breach of 'negative security assurance' ,layed out in the NPT, which ensures nuclear weapon states will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear weapon states. Bush's '02 Nuclear Posture Review states he has authority to use preemptive nuclear weapon attacks on non-nuclear states.

The US is enforcing the treaty with threats, no different than the police threatening to arrest criminals who break the law. How else can a treaty be enforced if not by threats?

Sorry but nuclear weapon NPT members must follow the treaty and negotiate in good faith.

Besides, what's wrong with the US threatening North Korea or Iran to get them to give up their nuclear weapons? Those threats worked to persuade South Africa and Libya to halt their nuclear programs. Is there anything wrong with that? IMO, those were major victories for the NPT and the US was responsible for those good things happening.

No. According to ex British foreign secretary Jack Straw, rapprochement with Libya on disarmament began back in the late '90s. Its only arrogance that makes the US believe that the latest threats made Libya stop its WMD programs.

This is where we totally disagree. I'm amazed that you think that if only the US and Israel had nuclear weapons the world wouldn't be safer. If that were the case, North Korea, Russian, China, England, France, India, Pakistan would no longer have nuclear bombs, something like 5000 atomic bombs would be disassembled. How can that possibly not lead to a safer world?

The world is not safer when countries are threatened. North Korea dropped out of the NPT because it felt threatened. I expect Iran and Syria to do the same if other countries like the US and Israel continue to be a threat to them.

How can you justify the idea that the world would not be safer if Pakistan and India were to get rid of their nuclear weapons? Those countries have had shooting wars, Pakistan has openly admitted that they have a first use policy for nuclear weapons in case of another war with India.

Yes those countries should join the NPT.

But I'd like you to answer my main criticism of your position, that if al Qaeda had had a nuclear bomb on 9/11, they would have used it. Bush is trying to prevent that from happening, which to me, is an extremely good thing.

I said nothing about allowing unauthorized people to use nuclear weapons. I said all countries SHOULD follow the guide lines of the NPT and that includes the US and Israel.

What you seem to be saying is that because the US isn't pressuring Israel to get rid of their weapons, somehow Bush's attempt to further limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not authentic. I totally disagree with that idea. Any attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is a good idea to me and what Bush is doing is meant to do only one thing, make the world safer.

Israel is the threat in the eyes of most of the middle east. Having Israel outside the NPT means they have nukes and that goes against UN resolution 687. Preemptive wars have been started over what people believe is a violation of UN resolutions. Sounds dangerous to me.

 

[90's sc vet]

No!!! The NPT places many restrictions on nuclear weapon member states.

I've never seen any restriction in the NPT on nuclear nations developing more advanced weapons. The articles you quoted explicitly do not exclude such development. Actually, none of them do.

If you think about it, such a prohibition would make no sense. All the nuclear weapons developed since WW2 have always involve greater security and safety measures, which is why further development was not prohibited by the NPT. To do anything else would make things worse, not better.

http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf

Can you point out to me which Article prohibits any signatory to the NPT from further development of any nuclear weapon? I can't find any language even close to that.

BTW, the US has, to date, entirely fulfilled the obligations of Article 6. Like I said before, the weapons count of the US and Russia has fallen from 50,000 to about 6,000. Article 6 called for a cessation of an arms race, which, IMO has happened.

Or is there some other interpretation of Article 6 that somehow says that:

a) reduction from 50K to 6K warheads is considered an arms race.

b) production of a non-nuclearABM system is a violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty?

The US is in breach of 'negative security assurance' ,layed out in the NPT, which ensures nuclear weapon states will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear weapon states.

What 'negative security assurance" clause in the NPT? All I see is a general statement that nations should "refrain" from threats of the use of force, but nothing specifically about the use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear nations. Which Article are you referring to?

No. According to ex British foreign secretary Jack Straw, rapprochement with Libya on disarmament began back

Qaddifi himself admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a factor in his decision to abandon nuclear weapons development in an interview on, IIRC, CNN.

Don't forget, Libya and Iran started developing nuclear weapons because Hussein started to. Iran and Iraq had a huge war with about 500K casualties on each side. Hussein used WMD on Iranian forces and no one doubts that Hussein had two massive nuclear programs, one in the early 80's and one in the early 90's. Now that Hussein is gone, the need for Libya and Iran to have nuclear weapons is gone, which is why both countries are now in the process of abandoning their nuclear programs (but we'll see about Iran).

The world is not safer when countries are threatened. North Korea dropped out of the NPT because it felt threatened.

Why did the Russians get rid of 90% of their nuclear weapons? Because the US was a threat to them?

But the real problem for your position is Libya. Why did Libya abandon it's nuclear program? Because of the US and Israeli are a threat or because they aren't a threat? Why should Iran and Syria maintain their nuclear ambitions if Libya has given up? And why do you think Libya abandoned its nuclear program? Because the US and Israel were nice to Qaddafi?

I said all countries SHOULD follow the guide lines of the NPT and that includes the US and Israel.
Israel is the threat in the eyes of most of the middle east.

As I said before, I go even further than your position on Israel, I think Israel should unilaterally abandon all its nuclear weapons. So on this issue, you're preaching to the preacher. ;->

However, here is, IMO, the choice the world has right now:

Scenario 1:

US and Israel are the only two countries with nuclear weapons. Europe, Asia, Africa, South America are nuclear free zones. Nuclear weapons count falls to about 3000.

Scenario 2 (which is right now):
North Korea is willing to sell nuclear weapons to anyone with enough money. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has publicly stated that they will use their bomb as soon as it's finished. Pakistan and India both have atomic bombs and Pakistan has a public first nuclear use doctrine. Al Qaeda is continually seeking to buy nuclear weapons from any source, disaffected Russian officers, North Korea, Pakistan, anyone who has the technology. Nuclear weapons count is about 8,000.

Are you actually saying that you believe Scenario 1 is more dangerous than Scenario 2?

If the price of getting rid of nuclear weapons around the world means that only the US and Israel have nuclear weapons, I vote for that option right this instant. Do you?

And to get back to the original question you posed, Bush is voting for Scenario 1 as well. Shouldn't any sane peace loving person support him in this effort? I sure do.

 

[Kathy P]

I didn't and don't support the right of Hussein to keep operating as a murderous dictator. I am Jewish and just the thought of what he did to the Baghdad Jewish community (when there still was one) when he first appointed himself president (remember he wasn't voted in) is sickening.

Having said that though nothing he did gave Bush the right to violate international law and right the rules of engagement as he went along. Bush went to the U.N. and when he did not get their approval for the war went ahead anyway without their sanctions. Under his administration, prisoners of war have been denied their legal and human rights covered under the Geneva Convention (different war) while in custody in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba (the U.S. Supreme Court said this in a scathing ruling) and all of this has been done supposedly in the name of democracy.

Back home, anyone who has the audacity to voice dissent (in the name of democracy) is blackballed, fired and/or shunned. Jeanne Garafallo (spelling?), Bill Maher and the Dixie Chicks come to mind.

Nothing that Hussein did as a murdering tyrant relieves Bush of his responsibility to engage in lawful conflicts and the war in Iraq was not one. As rotten as he was, Hussein and Iraq were not threatening the U.S. in any serious manner and there was no imminent threat to the U.S. Israel could justifiably argue that given the attacks they suffered in the past that were generated from Iraq, but not the U.S.

The entire premise of the war was false. While Al Queda does have supporters all over the Arab world, there was no specific, governmental plan in Iraq that combined Hussein's forces and Al Queda. A link between 9/11 and Iraq has never been proven. The war in Iraq was waged supposedly because of WMD and even they haven't been found.

It's my opinion that when you go around shining light in dark places you have to be prepared to face the music when the same light gets shined on your face.

 

[Kathy P]

Oh boy, I'm losing it: write not right!

 

[90's sc vet]

I didn't and don't support the right of Hussein to keep operating as a murderous dictator.

In that case, why not get rid of Hussein? How is the case of Iraq different from Germany in WW2?
Germany posed no threat to the US at that time.

Having said that though nothing he did gave Bush the right to violate international law and right the rules of engagement as he went along. Bush went to the U.N. and when he did not get their approval for the war went ahead anyway without their sanctions.

Nothing that Hussein did as a murdering tyrant relieves Bush of his responsibility to engage in lawful conflicts and the war in Iraq was not one. As rotten as he was, Hussein and Iraq were not threatening the U.S. in any serious manner and there was no imminent threat to the U.S.

The war in Iraq was waged supposedly because of WMD and even they haven't been found.

That is the debate that will continue up until this November.

As others have said, there were 20 (? I can't remember the exact number) UN resolutions calling for Iraq to allow inspections for WMD. The US Congress under Clinton passed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Hussein.

Everyone has seen the videos of those dead Kurds, killed by gas. Iranians know about WMD and Hussein, they were gassed during the Iran/Iraq war.

Prior to 9/11, the US pretty much put up with all those "Death to US" chants and demonstrations. But after 9/11, suddenly the US discovered that all those Muslims who shouted those death chants meant it.

So what are you saying? That Hussein, in killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens (what is the mass grave count up to now?) should have been allowed to continue doing so? As Hitler did prior to WW2? That Hussein, known to have produced and used WMD since the early 80's should have been allowed to continue and possibly end up supplying WMD to terrorists (remember, Hussein has always paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).

I always think about ranking possibilities. So what were the chances of Israel giving al Qaeda WMD? How about Canada or Japan? Not too likely. Any European countries likely to do that? No chance. How about Hussein? Now you have a problem.

The lesson of 9/11 wasn't that there were people who hated the US, that's always been true. The real lesson was that there are people who not only hate the US but could not be deterred from attacking.

How do you stop a suicide bomber carrying some kind of WMD? There's no chance, you can't defend everywhere all the time.

The only reasonable hope is to remove the sources of support and supply. So the US went to Kabul and to Baghdad to prevent another 9/11. The chances were pretty slim that Hussein would give WMD to al Qaeda, but you have to remember that prior to 9/11, everyone would have thought that getting 19 suicide bombers to attack simultaneously was also a vanishingly small probability. But it happened.

Suppose you have a boyfriend that you dump. He begins to stalk you, he publicly threatens you. What do you do?

Historically, the police could do nothing and far too often, the woman was hurt or worse.

Would you be in favour of a preemptive strike and have your old boyfiend put in jail, even if all he's done is utter threats? That's the law now but it wasn't before.

That's basically what happened with Hussein. Hussein attacked Iran and Kuwait, he's used WMD on his own people and over the last decade he's publicly threatened the US.

After 9/11, there was the clear possibility that al Qaeda would attack the US using any means available, and Hussein historically always had the means, WMD. So, as Bush, what do you do? Sit back and let the next attack happen? Bush didn't wait and took action. WMD wasn't found, but that's exactly like putting an old boyfriend in jail after he yells threats at you. Maybe he wouldn't have done anything, who knows? But are you willing to take that chance? But what if it's not just you but a few million US citizens at risk?

Never forget, everything the US does in foreign policy will now be influenced by 9/11. You can't ignore that flaming datum. If there is only one chance in a million that NYC or Washington will be hit with WMD, the US will now take action to protect itself. Before 9/11, that sort of thinking would have been regarded as crazy dangerous, after 9/11, it's now regarded as not only prudent but necessary. So WMD wasn't found in Iraq? Too bad, Hussein should have allowed the inspections (especially stupid now that WMD hasn't been found). The US, probably for the rest of our lives, won't be caught sleeping again ever again, and I don't blame them one bit.

 

[gramage]

I absolutely disagree. You're saying that al Qaeda had freedom to operate in Afghanistan and that a preemptive strike on their bases wouldn't have prevented 9/11? Sure, if the strike had occurred in 9/10, the 9/11 attacks would have proceeded. But I think it's a real stretch to say that had the US attacked in August or July and recovered the information they did after taking out the Taliban, they wouldn't have had a chance to disrupt al Qaeda's plans.

ok your completely mixing up your own points. al qaeda and the taliban: two seperate entities. attacking a terrorist base: not a preemptive war against a country. you can't combine the two to justify something other then what it was. preemptive war against the taliban would not have stopped 9/11 because they had nothing to do with it. they just would have hidden in the mountains where they are now, or set up in Saudi Arabia instead.