What's the point of attacking Iraq?

[Sam_Stone]

1. Where is my control over the US’ nuclear arsenal? If that control is solid, shouldn’t I have a part in it?

You live in a democracy. If enough people want nuclear weapons in the U.S. gone, they can elect politicians who promise to do that. But in any case, the ‘control’ I was speaking of has more to do with the weapons being safeguarded against theft or being used by rogue elements within the government, or safe from having the government change for the worse. There is no guarantee that Iranian nuclear weapons would be secure, as there are rival factions within their government and outside of it who exert significant control over the military.

2. As far as I understand it, Iran also believes in the rule of law, although that law is quite different from the law the United States observes.

Right. And the mob has a very strong set of ‘laws’ embodied in its code of conduct. So what? The U.S. has the right to defend itself against countries whose laws are not in line with our own perception of morality and civility. Iran has the same right, of course, but when interests collide it is only right for the U.S. to stand up for its own.

Unreliable, eh? Let’s see… Iran had a revolution that overthrew a US puppet government in 1979, and Iraq was a reliable enough ally for the US to ship conventional and biological weapons to until around 1990, when Saddam started talking about how the US was flexing too much muscle regarding oil supplies. IOW, they told the US where to shove it. Is that what makes them unreliable? Their unwillingness to completely bow to US demands?

No. What makes them unreliable is that Iran has a totalitarian government with ties to terrorists, and with shifting internal allegiances that make predicting the type of government in 10 years impossible. It could modernise and join the community of civilized nations, in which case we’d back off of demands that they get rid of nuclear weapons and missiles, or they could turn back into a fanatical religious theocracy, in which case those weapons would be a significant risk to the civilized world.

And where exactly did I argue it was OK for either Iran or the US to possess nuclear weapons? We all know what the damn things can do, and the technology has advanced by light-years since the last two demonstration against civilian populations. The use of nuclear weapons is nothing less than mass murder.

Well, that depends on how and where they are used. You may note that the Bush administration has embarked on a massive dismantling of the large strategic rocket fleet, and it re-evaluating smaller, ‘theater’ weapons. Whether they should be used or not is a difficult question, but tactical nukes are aimed at combatants and are therefore not tools for mass murder of civilians.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Right. And the mob has a very strong set of ‘laws’ embodied in its code of conduct. So what? The U.S. has the right to defend itself against countries whose laws are not in line with our own perception of morality and civility.

By threatening them with the same fate the US feels may befall itself sometime in the future. So if the US regards itself as the defender of morality and civility, it can resort to immoral and barbarous methods?

Also, unless I grossly misunderstand the nature of Middle Eastern countries, the societies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - to cite two examples - are based on the same laws as Iran and Iraq. Why are they “in line” with the US’ perception of morality and civility?

What makes them unreliable is that Iran has a totalitarian government with ties to terrorists, and with shifting internal allegiances that make predicting the type of government in 10 years impossible. It could modernise and join the community of civilized nations, in which case we’d back off of demands that they get rid of nuclear weapons and missiles, or they could turn back into a fanatical religious theocracy, in which case those weapons would be a significant risk to the civilized world.

So the US would feel compelled to threaten Iran with nuclear destruction. Brilliant.

**Well, that depends on how and where they are used. You may note that the Bush administration has embarked on a massive dismantling of the large strategic rocket fleet, and it re-evaluating smaller, ‘theater’ weapons. Whether they should be used or not is a difficult question, but tactical nukes are aimed at combatants and are therefore not tools for mass murder of civilians. **

Nukes are nukes. Do you really think combatants are going to position themselves far enough away from cities so civilians remain safe? Will the radiation and the dust kicked up simply stay put on the battlefield and not drift elsewhere on the winds? Chernobyl’s cloud crossed Europe in a matter of weeks, if not days. What sort of effects will the clouds from nuclear weapons, whose individual yields are surely far greater than Chernobyl’s, have on civilian populations elsewhere in the world?

You live in fear of a nuclear attack from an unfriendly government, and yet you think instilling that same fear in ordinary people halfway across the world will somehow make the world a safer place for you. It makes no sense. The US terrorizing the people of a nation it deems terrorist only makes those people resent the US more.