The point is proximity to a point of influence. Normally we can influence the state where we live more effectively than other states, but if I was in Belgium and could stop a robbery, I would attempt it at least so much as my personal cowardice would permit.
This is where our core philosophical differences become irreconcilable, I suspect. Between the awesome destructive power of WMD, the lightning pace that the Internet shares information and the cultural diversity enjoyed in my country; I consider the world a pretty small place. Add to this the fact that the United States is the financial backbone of much of the planet and I just can't view us as a separate entity. It just seems like everyone is my next door neighbor. Everywhere is Belgium (per your example) in my book.
My brothers say I shouldn't play
with Occam's little willity
he's Hatfield and not properly
an instance of hillbillity
but jeepers when he jumps on me
he does it with agility
that sort of date can mitigate
Sure, communications and travel technologies 'shrink' the world. But what is the consequence you suggest? That you (the US) have licence to be senior policeman/judge to the world?
Mr. Moore, is that you? Surely you are not that ignorant. A single WMD could kill 1,000 Times more people that 4 airplanes did on September 11th. I'll grant you that there is some excess fear-mongering going around, but doubting the potential of advanced WMD is the epitome of foolishness. It is you who needs to do some research.
WMD are not new; chemical weapons have been used for at least a century, nuclear about 75.
... chemical weapons have been used for at least a century ...
Which has what to do with invading Iraq?
well Set you missed the point
more and smaller countries are getting advanced technology, Iraq is/was a small country getting advanced technology ergo we had to invade. Remember progress is our most feared product. If you let them develop electric lights next thing you know they will have the hydrogen bomb and the stealth bomber to deliver it. Not only that but if we let them develop fertilizers they could turn them into bombs as well. I say we ban fertilizer sales to all 3rd world countries (and Canada). Terrorists aren't stupid you know!
Quote:Surely you are not that ignorant. A single WMD could kill 1,000 Times more people that 4 airplanes did on September 11th. I'll grant you that there is some excess fear-mongering going around, but doubting the potential of advanced WMD is the epitome of foolishness. It is you who needs to do some research.
It's not that I don't think that WMD are deadly. Of course they can be. We can all envision a device that could spread a biological or chemical agent over a large area quickly, with devastating consequences to the populace inside.
But, the question remains, apart from nuclear devices, are WMD really more deadly than conventional bombs? A single MOAB dropped in the middle of a city could easily lead to thousands and thousands of civilian deaths, and two or three of them could be devastating.