MIke,

No, I don't doubt that he's making the stuff to use it. The question is on who, and why. I think we're at risk of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - I think we're both of the opinion that he's past his expiration date. He has chemical weapons and has used them because they're efficient ways to fight wars. He didn't use them on us in the Gulf War, which demonstrates that he can be deterred by threats of superior force. I don't think it's great that he has them, and I don't think it would be great if he had nukes, either. However, I must point out that Pakistan, India, North Korea, South Africa, and all of the states of the former soviet union have nukes. We don't want Hussein to get them, but lets not kid ourselves that he's the only quick stop weapons shop in the mid-east.

There are already too many nukes in unfriendly or unstable hands. If you want to have a nightmare, think about revolution in Pakistan, with the winner being buddies with Bin Laden. There is already significant instability in Pakistan, and Mushareff (sp) is only hanging on by the skin of his teeth.

I believe Hussein mainly wants nukes because Israel has nukes. If he had a nuke, it would dramatically change the balance of power between Iraq and Israel. Him getting a few nukes would not change the balance of power between Iraq and the US, it would only affect the balance between him and the other states in the region. He doesn't need them to sell them for the money - he's got oil.


Wabowhunter,

re: 9/11, the point is, Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the world trade center bombing. If it had, and we had even a shred of evidence, the Marines would be toasting weiners in Baghdad already. So tying these two events together is sloppy logic at best. But, as I have said elsewhere, Hussein did not and does not have the motivation for these types of acts.

You may be missing my point. I don't mean to downplay the significance or horror of 9/11. My point is just that there's a lot of flag waving going on as we are trying to figure out what we are doing. There's a lot of talk about freedom. This is an emotionally charged word, and it moves people to take action. I merely observe that our freedom is not at risk, has not been put at risk, and is not likely to be put at risk by these events.

Our safety is at risk. Our economy has been damaged. We feel less secure. But we are still free to flame at each other on our keyboards. We are still free to walk down the street. We can still buy firearms, and criticize our government. We can still buy and burn Brittany Spears cds. I don't think anyone would argue that these aspects of our society, which make us a great place to live, have been changed.

So, yeah, even though I worry about a mushroom cloud appearing the freight docks in downtown Seattle, I don't think it's correct to say that our freedom has been reduced or threatened.

The only reason that I am picking this nit is that I don't respect the way the Bush administration has been propagandizing us. It annoys me, because I actually agree with GW that we need to take Saddam out. But I bitterly object to Bush trying to manipulate the American people and the world into seeing it his way and only his way. The simple facts and truth ought to be good enough. If they are not, well, then maybe our position isn't correct.