I can accept your responses. I do not agree, but, as always, I am willing to admit that I am not an expert in these matters. All I have is my somewhat limited amount of common sense. So going on this, here is why I disagree. First: A rogue state that would arm terrorists with nukes.....what would lead you to believe that this would "avoid retaliation"? We have seen that terrorists are not exactly the kinds of deal makers that can be trusted. We armed Saddam. We armed and trained Bin Laden. They have no interest in loyalty. But more importantly, even the most unstable rogue states have more to lose than to gain. Let's say, for example, North Korea sells (or gives) nukes to Al Qaeda. (Not that they have the kind of arsenal to afford to let them go, but again, this is all hypothetical). So now, Al Qaeda has what they consider a "source". What is to prevent Al Qaeda from using the threat to use bomb #1 to obtain more bombs from N. Korea? In this scenario, N. Korea has already demonstrated that they have the weapons, and have shown enough weakness as to part with them. And a terrorist organization with a nuke is not (as we have seen) an easy target to argue with (or attack). The bomb, once in the hands of terrorists, can be placed anywhere. Including right in N. Korea. What easier way to blackmail them into giving up more? A no win situation. Germany helped the Palestinian terrorists who committed the murders at the '72 Olympics in Munich. They thought if they cooperated with the terrorists, then the terrorists would leave Germany alone. Didn't work. There is no honor among these people. They will strive to achieve their goals in any way they can. They have no allegiances to any legitimate government. Rogue or not. And in the case of N. Korea, to stay with the example, and to also stay with Al Qaeda, N. Korea is a bunch of "infidels", so they are just to be used and then discarded. So avoiding retaliation seems a pretty risky business. The second point...."money pure and simple". Any country with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons has money. Yes, there is never enough money to satisfy any government. But selling obsolete (or ineffective) missiles to Yemen is a far cry from selling nukes. The missiles can never be a threat to N. Korea. A nuke can be. Besides, how much money is a nuke worth? How much money can a terrorist organization put together to buy one? And how much money does a nation (even N. Korea) have relative to a terrorist organization. Now if Saudi Arabia had nukes, maybe they would give them away to al Qaeda. But they would not do it for the money. They would more likely supply the money if a nuke were on the market. As the case really is though, the Saudis are more likely to be buyers than are any terrorist organization. They really do have the money. And somewhere in Russia, there must be a few unaccounted for nukes. But so far as we know, this hasn't happened (yet). North Korea, and Pakistan have nukes. But do they have enough to spare? Pakistan is a very nervous state with an unfriendly neighbor with their own nuclear weapons. So their interests are in keeping their arsenal intact. N. Korea also has nukes. But they too need as many as they can produce as a "deterrent" to their unfriendly neighbors. I think the great danger is not the buying or selling of these weapons. It is the possible stealing of them from a somewhat dismantled and disorganized Soviet arsenal. While N. Korea and Pakistan may have a few bombs, the Soviet Union had tens of thousands. Keeping track of them......well so far it seems a miracle that to our knowledge none have gotten into the hands of any terrorist groups. If they had, we most likely would have already seen them used. Bottom line though is this. No government will trust a terrorist group. Not to the extent of providing them with a nuclear bomb. Too risky. There is no trusting a Bin Laden. Even the craziest of the rogue states recognizes this. Or should. They all have their history books. They all have internet access. They all know that a deal with the devil is never equitable. Peace, rs7
Good luck getting any of these questions answered by Madison. I've tried many times but to no avail. He, like many of the posters here, are all protest but no resolution other than let's all hold hands, sing Kumbayah, and hope the terrorists stop being angry.
Two problems. Buying off thugs is poor form. Also, who's to say they stay bought off. Clinton already tried this tactic and it blew up in our face , just by chance at a time when they thought we were too preoccupied to do anything militarily. thugs? you talking about US oil companies or NK? when NK is doing significant trade to the outside world, thats when NK (or any other 3rd world nation) will find its in their best interest not to sell nukes to terrorists. it would be money out of their pockets. You are right on your facts but I don't reach the same conclusion. Are you saying we would attack them to get oil concessions for US companies? We could have done that last time. This is what is behind the UN maneuvering though, no question. French are trying to improve their position. last time wasnt primed for a regime change. the PR campaign was about freeing Kuwait. my guess, we tried the threat of force to get oil contracts and he called us on it. since the end of the gulf war we have wanted saddam out. whats fair - i dont know. the threat of attacking should get us concessions from france,russia and china who fear losing all deals with iraq. the US oil interests are fearing iraq complies to UN inspectors. if you want peace - keep threatening force, if he doesnt comply follow thru only if necessary. wouldnt gain as much oil interests (if no war) but greed would keep iraq selling us oil at reasonable prices - other OPEC countries would have no problem upping production to gain market share.
I agree with some of your thinking, but one problem is that some nuclear and potentially nuclear states are far from unitary or stable (something that can also be said for some of their leaders, it seems). The danger of a nuke or other WMD ending up in the hands either of a terrorist group or other dangerous forces - through sale, theft, gift, or other means - would increase many times over during or after some military or political or other crisis. We've already had a preview in the case of the break-up of the Soviet Union: A combination of luck, money, and diplomacy prevented (so far... apparently) a situation where hostile successors, competitors, or interlopers ended up in the possession of any of the Soviet's ten of thousands of warheads or precursor materials and equipment. There is reason to believe that we came very close to just such a nightmare scenario, or even to more than one, and that the threat still exists.
the coalition of the unwilling ... ... France complicated Bush's task by telling the United Nations Security Council there is no reason yet for military action, hinting it may veto any resolution authorizing an attack. Other nations - including Russia, Germany, China and Chile - have backed the French contention that U.N. inspections are starting to work and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. ``I think the sense of the council is that the majority is against military action,'' Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador, Gennady Gatilov, told The Associated Press. ... full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2339565,00.html regards wild
Yes, the majority may be against it, but the majority may be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I wonder if the US acts in a unilateral fashion, or with only a few allies, acts without the consent of the security council, will France and Germany want a piece of lower oil prices if the US is quickly successful, or will they continue to pay higher oil prices so that they reap no benefit from the US actions. That would be fine with me. Let them take the money they would save from lower oil prices, and rather than benefitting directly, they could send all that money they save to the Iraqui people to rebuild their economy if that is their main concern. Frankly, if it is the right thing to do, I don't care with the Euros think.
I know what you mean. One of the frustrations of attempting to debate these issues, and not just in these virtual environs, is the apparent unwillingness or inability of many on either side to think past their pre-cooked or directly cut-and-pasted pronouncements. They ignore arguments or ideas that they apparently find inconvenient, and, when challenged, they suddenly find something else to do with their time, or, like wild, come up with yet another - very likely irrelevant or redundant - cut-and-paste or link.
Can you imagine Wild participating in a debate? "Excuse me, I have to go to google to find someone who has a response to that issue you just raised. Hold on and I will be back in a half hour after I have found someone from my list of qualified web sites who can respond appropriately, and I will read back their thoughts to you."
The Euros, especially the Germans, are in somewhat the same position as the Democrats: In broad terms, if Bush policy works, or is seen to have worked, then they're largely irrelevant, whether they supported it or not. If Bush fails, or is seen to have failed, then it's in their interest to have their seats in the I-told-you-so section reserved. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt at all to play to constituencies. I'm not saying that all of those who oppose US policy are unprincipled, only that they're just playing their usual roles and seeing to their interests as one would expect. I also suspect that there's some wishful thinking, generally on the part of the French, German, and other European populations if not necessarily on the part of their leadership elites, that having politicians and protestors voice opposition to the US will make the countries marginally less likely to be objects of terorrist or other reprisals. Anyway, the real shock would be if France or China or any other countries or groups that aren't on the "inside" were to commit themselves to a US venture which entails substantial risks, in which they've had little input, over which they have little or no control, and whose terms have not yet been spelled out in full. It is true, however, that having international support is worth something, potentially quite a lot, to the Bush Administration, both for the sake of maximizing US domestic support and for the sake of sharing the risks and costs to whatever extent it's possible to do so. There's no reason, therefore, for the US to antagonize the French or anyone else when they may merely be setting up some later argument for their relevance - even if it's largely a sham. As I suggested earlier, I believe that when the US makes its precise intentions clear, members of the international community will have ample opportunity to decide whether they want to lend a hand or get out of the way, or whether another UN vote will serve any purpose. If it suits the French or Russians to have it look like they were "dragged kicking and screaming" but also were, in the end, good allies once treated accordingly and "shown the goods," and if they win some concessions as a result, then so be it: There are much more important issues at stake. I tend to believe, though I obviously can't be sure, that most countries will decide sooner or later, as they did last Fall at the UN, that going with the US is wiser than going against it. If that's what occurs, then whatever necessary pretexts will be found to justify whatever desired revisions in stated policy - in the spirit of "was interresiert mich mein dummes Geschwaetz von vorgestern?" ("Why should I care about the stupid nonsense I was uttering the day before yesterday?") In the meantime, it doesn't suit anyone's purposes, other than maybe wild's and Hussein's, to make a big deal about the latest in a long line of French efforts to assert their oh-so special significance.
Better him than us. I truly wonder if Wild and the other cut and paste masters think we read all that nonsense. Or more to the point, if we did, would it make any difference to us? What really gets me is when they cut and paste, and then have the link posted as well. Are we supposed to read it all twice? Will these people ever get the point that quoting completely biased sources is meaningless? What side of what issue CAN'T be supported by some printed source? I am sure with the slightest effort I could find documentation to "prove" the Earth is flat. Peace, rs7