Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chris and I were chatting on msn messenger about weapons of mass destruction. We know we are mere simpiltons, so perhaps someone can clear the issue up for us.
It seems ironic to us that the United States (and their allies) paints Iraq as criminals because they allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. They are so criminal that we have to invade them and rid them of the same.
The United States have the most amount of WMD in the world.
So, it seems that it is morally wrong for Iraq to possess WMD but it is not for the United States…
The argument that the US wouldn’t use them raises the question - then why have them?
Mmmmmm… something is fishy here.
April 30th, 2003 at 5:03 pm
and haven’t we proven that Iraq either didn’t have them or wouldn’t use them?
April 30th, 2003 at 5:34 pm
I am not sure we have proved that Iraq didn’t have WMD yet. Too early to call.
As to if they had them, why didn’t they use them there are a number of possibilities I guess. Hussain could have been killed in the initial attacks or the command infrastructure was damaged.
We will not know for sure for a while.
What can be said though: is that the criticism of Blix and the UN by Blair, Howard and Bush for not being quick enough is now seen in a new light with the US asking for patience.. Do I hear an echo?
April 30th, 2003 at 5:42 pm
True-I agree.
April 30th, 2003 at 7:50 pm
I think the America WMD thing goes back to another acronym, Mutually Assured Destruction - the idea that if the ‘bad guys’ launches nukes, then so does America and therefore they wipe each other out.
And while I’m a cynic at heart, I think we often forget that while America may do some dodgy stuff, they do fight with higher ethical standards. For example they have a ‘don’t fire until fired upon’ policy. And they do not, at least as a widespread policy, use torture or cruel methods.
Last point - Iraq also had a number of fully loaded warplanes ready to go, but they never even took off? Wonder why?
May 1st, 2003 at 4:34 am
We can have weapons of mass destruction because we are not going to use them against our allies, whereas our allies enemies, given time, will.
Taken a step further, haven’t sanctions been a weapon of mass destruction? Bombing water treatment facilities and using cluster bombs in civilian areas are against international law, aren’t they? We may believe we fight with higher ethical standards, but when it comes right down to it, we are criminals. It’s war.
May 1st, 2003 at 9:03 am
Biological and other non nuclear weapons of mass destruction seem to be somewhat different to nuclear weapons. To the best of my knowledge the US does not trade in nuclear, it keeps them for its own self defence. It is quite happy however to sell other WMD to other countries that happen to suit its foriegn policy agenda
May 1st, 2003 at 1:50 pm
Laura, are you suggesting that all war is criminal, or just the fact that using certain weapons is a breach of international law?