Don't be so sensitive there, Louis. If these were
conventional weapons, we would not have to worry. But
if we are dealing with someone who has invaded another
country in the past, who has used such weapons on his
own people, and who is generally regarded as an enemy
of the US, we have a right to some wiggle room with
respect to drawing inferences about the man. If we
waited for iron clad proof of plans for a strike
(eseentially if we could look into a crystal ball),
then that would be ideal. But we do have a right to
look after our safety before some cataclysmic event
claims thousands of lives in one fleeting moment. That
gives us the right. We find new evidence everyday that
we have in the man (Hussein), the weaponry, and in the
delivery device (Al Qaeda) indications of a gathering

     And after some of that rhetoric out of Pyongyang,
I hope we go after North Korea next before they have
an opportunity to test long-range delivery devices for
their nuclear warheads, another former war enemy with
obvious anti-American sentiment itching to say just
about anything in the name of brinkmanship (hopefully
just brinkmanship).

     And as terrible as it was, what happened at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost fewer lives than would
have been lost in a proposed conventional invasion.
Granted, I think if we factored in a broader sense of
the damage to the climate, that perhaps an amphibious
landing would have been more judicious, but then this
was World War II. There was a lot riding on this one.
I am not familiar with the odds at that time of losing
a war without drastic measures. My history here is a
little fuzzy, so I really do have to leave open the
question of whether those bombs were necessary.

J. Wyatt

--- Louis Proyect <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> J. Wyatt Ehrenfels wrote:
> >      As for compliance with weapons inspections?
> > Powell said it most succinctly, "Concessions are
> not
> > compliance." There is reason to believe that he is
> > rebuilding his weapons as fast as he is destroying
> > them. He destroys them late (he's had 12 years by
> one
> > interpretation and 6 months by another) and at a
> > snail's pace. And he destroys just enough to
> divide
> > the international community.
> What gives the USA the right to invade another
> country because it has
> weapons of mass destruction and has invaded other
> countries? If we were
> operating on some kind of ethical imperative, we
> would have invaded
> Israel long ago which defies UN resolutions, invades
> other nations
> routinely, tortures people, and has more nuclear
> weapons than Iraq could
> dream of. Not only that, the USA has a far worse
> record than Iraq when
> it comes to international law. It illegally mined
> the harbors of
> Nicaragua, it very likely used biological and
> chemical warfare against
> Cuba, it wreaked a human and ecological disaster in
> Vietnam with Agent
> Orange and blew 2 Japanese cities to kingdom come.
> "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
> weapon at Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our
> war against Japan.
> The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to
> being
> the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical
> standard common to the
> barbarians of the Dark Ages."
> ---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
> Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War
> II
> --
> The Marxism list:

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more