Why is Iraq in Chaos? NO END IN SIGHT Now On DVD

bad karma produces bad results only.the wheel of life will turn back on us

With Israel with that many Nukes it is essential that the arabs gain them as a balance of power.

Americans murdered 10 million North American Indians should they be flattened too?

Well, you could get into an argument as to whether some action or another is moral. I think for the purpose of practicality it's not so much that some historical nastiness occurred, rather that we do what we can - to prevent such a recurrence in the future. That to me, seems far, far more useful than reparations nonsense, which leads to worrying about whether 10 years at Dachau is worth 4$ on the hour or 5$ and implies that abject suffering and degeneracy is simply an "overhead" cost.

Yes, It does explain what you were saying... but I don't see how it really refutes what I originally said.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator with an aggressive past. He was an idiot but was also bold and daring. Not to mention the fact that he had used WMDs on numerous occasions in the past...

So when it becomes clear he aspired to re-initiate his WMD program once UN sanctions expired, it seems satisfying to know that he was knocked out before a rebuilding regime became a reality.

We don't as a general rule do very much about atrocities not historically, not today, generally not ever. We clean up, we tend to prevent those problems that are in our interests, but since WW2, in the Iraqi & Vietnamese case, there were no compelling national interests save those conjured by politicians & militarists through manipulation of intelligence in BOTH cases. In Vietnam the game was to inform McNamara's viewpoint , in Iraq the game was to encourage Mr. Bush's personal inclinations.

In the case of Viet Nam, simply put, Russam, McNamara and Bundy were working off of largely incorrect presumptions about the Vietnamese conflict itself, earnestly but incorrectly - as it turns out.

Iraq, it's different, in so far as it is entirely unclear considering the 2nd tier personalities involved. That those individuals informing Mr. Bush's views were working in the interests of the US & here we are today - contemplating similar action against Iran as they develop nuclear capability.

While conservative elements of the Israeli body politic are extraordinarily concerned about Iran.

Iran simply is defiant, 5 nations in Iran's region already have nuclear weapons, there is a second arms race, and that does suck, but if we wanted to be serious about counter-proliferation we needed to be doing so consistently 25 years ago. Today it is more than a little late, so US (not Israeli) economic interests, oil/gas price stability specifically, must take precedence over others concerns.

SCUD - Type 3 missiles (the most common type) can carry small payloads inaccurately up to 500-800 nautical miles. These missiles could easily include a small "gun-type" Hiroshima style weapon of modern design.

Largely the states in the "lower tier" were not acquiring nuclear weapons for reasons all that far removed from simple Bourgeois impulse ( simply to know they have one ), like a new Bentley or Porsche only with more gamma ray output & generally not from a warranted military viewpoint.

1- SCUDs are not nuclear weapons.

2- I wouldn't doubt Syria or Libya seeking nuclear weapons... Egypt is a lot more iffy, but still plausible anyway. Given their history and current foreign policy, those states were not at all the same as the Ba'ath Regime.

3- Discussing Qatar, UAE, and Oman in a military way is pretty funny to say the least. Even Saudia Arabia, which needs to be protected by an umbrella of American military bases, is a laughing matter when it comes to military terms.