Buffett's been right about everything else, I'm sure he'll be right on that one as well. And practically speaking, what's the difference in the fear factor between several dirty bombs and one suitcase nuke?? Mosquito Coast - here I come!
None actually. The result is the same but living in fear is no way to live. Better to confront it and get it behind you. Kinda like taking your losses early.
ShoeShine, I apologize as it seems I assumed, incorrectly, that you were against the US taking preemptive action in order to protect itself... I must echo a lot of what White has posted, i.e. removing Saddam will send a message, etc. As far as the criteria for our country getting involved, to me it is as simple as evaluating if the threat posed threatens our country with weapons of mass destruction. By this criteria, yes, I think action will eventually have to be taken regarding N. Korea. They already have missiles capable of reaching Japan, and in the near future are expected to be able to reach first Hawaii and then the US mainland. The situation that has been allowed to develop there is a reminder of why we have to remove Saddam now. I like the idea of a global policy simply stating no more nukes. As you and White have mentioned, we'll face enormous international pressure, but too bad. We have to stop pussy-footing around. We are the world's cop, and at some point we have to not only make the rules clear, but rigidly enforce them. As far as it just being a matter of time before a nuke goes off in one of our cities, I would say that is a possibility at this point but a certainty if we don't get on the ball.
No problem - I wasn't clear. But then it's hard to be clear in a few sentences. I just wanted to emphasize in the long term it will be a gross mistake to have action without communication and well thought out policy. What's sad to me (and this will date me) is that I can remember the first time in school that I heard about the Iron Curtain and the Communist Bloc and behind it the Kremlin. It was downright scary as a kid. I've got a preschooler and I remember hoping that he would never have to worry about such things...
a British view ... ... Even if the US is able to bribe and bully its way to a new UN resolution in the face of world opinion - with oil contracts here and nods to ethnic repression there - that endorsement will lack any genuine international legitimacy. An invasion and occupation of a country which offers no credibly "clear and present threat" to any other state constitutes in any case a multiple violation of the UN charter. As the buildup to war continues, it will likely become ever clearer that the UN is simply being used as a fig leaf for aggression and the public opinion advantages of any security council deal may well prove less significant than they now appear. As things stand, there must be every expectation that Tony Blair is prepared to drag this country into a profoundly dangerous US imperial adventure in the teeth of mass public opposition without even the veneer of prior parliamentary endorsement. One result is that sections of what is already Britain's largest-ever anti-war movement will turn to civil disobedience. Last week, in the first such incident since Britain's war of intervention against the Soviet Union more than 80 years ago, two traindrivers based at Motherwell in Scotland refused to move a freight train carrying ammunition destined for British forces in the Gulf in protest against the threat of war against Iraq. More than a dozen workers at the depot have now supported the action. If this war goes ahead, many others are likely to follow their lead. In such circumstances, direct action will not simply be justified, it will be a democratic necessity. full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,875672,00.html make your own Bush speech ... on peace, freedom & democracy http://www.lemonbovril.co.uk/bushspeech/index.html regards wild
I bet that if the arabs crashed a 747 into the Big Ben those wimps would be begging the US to nuke the whole middle east.
Collateral Damage : the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq New report shows likely casualties of up to half a million in short and long term from war on Iraq A war on Iraq could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond, says an authoritative new report launched today in London and 13 other countries. Researched and written by international health professionals, this evidence-based analysis examines the likely impact of a new war on Iraq from a public health perspective. Estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians. The aftermath of a 'conventional' war could include famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, and economic collapse in Iraq. Destabilisation and possible regime change in neighbouring countries and more terrorist attacks are possible. Global economic crisis may be triggered through trade reduction and soaring oil prices, with particularly devastating consequences for developing countries. The financial burden will be enormous on all sides, with arms spending, occupation costs, relief and reconstruction possibly exceeding $150-200bn. ... more at http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/a9560 http://www.medact.org/tbx/pages/ ... "let´s smoke ´em out of their caves ... we´ll take ´em to justice" (George W. Bush, President of the United States of America) regards wild
You got that right ! Wild: lots of things are possible but highly unlikely. We'll see after the fact how accurate your doomsayers are. By the way they overlooked one other consequence, if that's imaginable. It's likely that most of the world will be stricken with the heartbreak of psoriasis. FYI the UN charter specifically makes provision for countries to defend themselves without any sanction from that body. Not only that but our Constitution forbids that we enter any treaty or agreement that abridges that right. It's fine if you aren't comfortable with that arrangement for yourselves just don't ask us to tie our hands and abjectly surrender our sovereignty to a bunch of third world thugs.
Seumas Milne represents the British point of view? Hardly. Do a search on google for "Seumas Milne" and you will find that he is not representative of the British government, nor their citizens. More intellectual dishonesty from Wild.
quote from white17 FYI the UN charter specifically makes provision for countries to defend themselves without any sanction from that body. so, the US of A is defending itself against Iraq according to the relevant provisions of the UN charter ... right ? regards wild