If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (= nukes and germs) and if Saddam is such a threat to us, why hasn’t he used those weapons yet? Presumably because he knows that if he were to attack the US, or if an attack were tied to him, we would bomb the mother-loving shit out of his country. Deterrence is ugly but effective.

But it only works until the war begins. Then Saddam has no reason not to use everything he’s got against us.

Why do we suddenly think that the certainty of massive retaliatory strikes by the US is no longer enough? Or are there other reasons (= oil and Oedipus) for starting a war against Iraq?

(For the record – as if someone were counting – if there were plants producing nukes or germs in Iraq, I would have little moral problem with our blowing them up, as Israel did in the early ’80s. Illegal? Sure. But ultimately it’d make the world a better place. And, no, I don’t think this is symmetrical: Iraq shouldn’t blow up our nuclear capability. Why this lack of symmetry? It’s not a matter of ethics but a question what would make the more stable. Of course, I am also here making some conservative judgments about the value of the world order that I’m interested in stabilizing.)

Categories: Uncategorized dw