Libya promised to end it's WMD programs 2 years ago. The best analysts out there say it was a shambles anyways.
Quote:1. Keep tabs on whoever is building WMD. Too bad if it's hard. It's the problem we've been given.
2. If the entity building the WMD is very, very, very bad - like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, bin Laden, or on that level, we simply have to stop them. First we try diplomacy, and negotiation, and incentives, etc., etc., but if none of that works, we use force. After we do this it will be one less entity to keep tabs on.
3. We can examine the policies that make people want to use WMD. But in some cases people are just evil, and that's why they do it. What are we supposed to do about that, other than oppose them? We certainly should not let other countries or terrorists demand that we abandon policies that we think are right, as the price for them promising not to use their WMD on us. Ultimately, we do need to have an arrangement with all the civilized nations to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of hideous dictators or terrorists.
I completely agree with everything written here. I just think we need to make sure, due to the nature of WMD, that when we are eliminating one enemy, we are not creating another one in the process. It's also rough to label people 'evil'; It's not that I don't agree with you, but evil is in many ways a point of view. I'm sure many Arabs will swear to you that Bush is evil, and while I don't agree with his policies I don't think he's evil.
Question for you: if they truly believe that Bush is evil, yet they have no other way of striking America other than non-conventional weapons, are they justified? (Not to us, but from their viewpoint, would they be?)
It's not about abandoning things that we think are right in order to avoid having pre-existing terrorists use their weapons on us. That's a silly idea. Instead, we should examine our policies to see what we can do to improve the lives of the people over there.
Why? For one thing, it's a good thing to help people. Second, we may be able to KEEP new terrorists from arising by fixing the economic equities of the region, or at least seeming to do so. We don't have to give very much at all, we just need to recognize that their problems are valid. There's nothing like marginalizing someone to fill them up with anger, which is what we don't want given the circumstances.
We HAVE an arrangment to deal with WMD and terrorism. It's called the UN. Now, you can argue that the UN is a flawed system, but it would be better for us to fix that system than to abandon it completely.
My comments about America's WMD were actually poorly worded, upon review
Hate it when that happens. I guess what I was getting that is this:
We chide other countries for developing WMD. There are a certain amount of countries that already have them, and there's nothigg we can do about it. Other countries are in the process of acquiring them, and we threaten them with sanctions and such. Some countries are not allowed to build WMD, because they seem agressive and we won't let them.
At the same time, we probably have the largest stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the world. We lose credibitlity internationally by condemning other countries for doing the same things that we do. This situation doesn't seem at all strange to us - after all, we are a force of good in the world, right?
Other countries don't see it that way, though. Differences in viewpoint might not seem like something worth arguing over, but by understanding the enemy, you can conquer him much easier (or even get him to defect). In this case, I think the U.S. should take a hard look in the mirror before stating that other countries are not allowed to make WMD. Not becuase I disagree with this position, but because other countries will.
Cycloptichorn
