So Saddam didn't use chemical weapons during Desert Storm (because he didn't have any) but now it appears that we did. Not that this should come as too much of a surprise in the wake of Abu Ghraib and the ongoing opposition by the Bush Administration to the McCain amendment to outlaw torture.
First of all WP, when used as an incindiary (that is what the US did) is not conseidered a chemical weapon. When used as we use it, it is no different than any other conventional weapon.
Secondly, would you prefer that we blow them up the old fashioned way? Or, maybe we could crash airliners into their buildings. And, as far as the Abu Ghraib and torture referrences, it seems you have very little perspective on warfare, or the defense of America from terrorism, other than what you read and are spoon fed by the media.
would you prefer that we blow them up the old fashioned way?
Isn't that what we did if, as you say, "it is no different than any other conventional weapon"?
You can't have it both ways.
I also got bothered by the use of chemical weapons.
It seems clear that the weapons were used for chemical effect. So that's against the 3rd part of that treaty.
But then the US didn't sign that 3rd part of the treaty -- so we are technically OK, in the sense that:
A) We are being consistent with our obligations
B) To the extent that other countries think we are morally reprehensible, we'll just tell them to talk to the hand. Nobody will refer us to the security council. If it happens, we'll just veto it.
When you engage in that sort of shysterism, you can't act morally superior with any credibility.
If we are going to be the "bad guy", why can't we do it right? If we really don't care what people think, can't we at least be unabashedly evil and enrich ourselves, or conquer Iraq at a smaller cost? It doesn't seem rational that we irritate people so much, spend so much money and get so little. Just having a "kill them and take their stuff" approach to things would be simpler and more economic.
Post a Comment