ultraviolet7
War Child
In response to us3
I never said the author of the article wasn't well qualified, simply regarding the aflatoxin I said that it made no sense that if the threat that this weapon implies in Hussein's hands has been proved seven years ago, no action had been taken so far. I found some of his statements to be arrogant and disrespectful towards other people who might have as much experience as he has in the Middle East situation but hold different views. Regarding the Iraqi-terrorist networks links he did not forward any proof regarding this, at least not on this article. I'm not saying that he can't come up with evidence, simply that he has not mentioned it esp when it's related to an issue which has been profusely discussed in the past few months and in every case such evidence failed to show up. If there's a more comprehensive article maybe you'd like to post a link for it. My comment is on what was actually posted.
This part is really what I disagree more with. I've already made my comment on the "morality" issue. Re the Israel sneak attack on the Osirak reactor I'm absolutely with the New York Times editorial excerpt except for the "short-sighted" qualification. While in this case pre-emptive action could have resulted in a positive outcome, to condone it in the light of the result obtained with the benefit of 10/20 years history to judge it, opens in my opinion a dangerous precedent in that it becomes acceptable that any state acts aggressively against another at its own discretion if the goal is in the long run considered "beneficial", the latter a concept way too blurred since it depends on who actually judges it. Israel itself holds nuclear power as other states like Pakistan and India do. Who can positively say that they are not going to pose a threat in 10/20 years' time? In 1981 Iraq was theoretically posing no more of a nuclear threat than Musharraf or even Isreal itself with nuclear power are posing now. While Israel's attack was claimed to have been performed as act of pre-emptive self-defence, what would Mr Goldberg say if say Syria or the Palestinians (if they had the power to do so) enacted a similar operation against an Israeli reactor alleging self-defense against a state who is hostile to them? I'd rather be careful in letting individual countries make certain decisions.
what dread said,(if someone can show me how to parse a quote into sections I would throw in an additional 2cents ans. UV7), coupled with the fact that the author of the article is well qualified, as he actually went undercover into Iraqikurdistan and substantiated Iraqi-AlQaeda link, etc...and saw first hand harm done to Kurds from chemical attacks.
I believe there is a longer and more substantive essay is in the New Yorker or Sunday Times Mag. This article I posted was actually an ongoing dial. at slate.
I never said the author of the article wasn't well qualified, simply regarding the aflatoxin I said that it made no sense that if the threat that this weapon implies in Hussein's hands has been proved seven years ago, no action had been taken so far. I found some of his statements to be arrogant and disrespectful towards other people who might have as much experience as he has in the Middle East situation but hold different views. Regarding the Iraqi-terrorist networks links he did not forward any proof regarding this, at least not on this article. I'm not saying that he can't come up with evidence, simply that he has not mentioned it esp when it's related to an issue which has been profusely discussed in the past few months and in every case such evidence failed to show up. If there's a more comprehensive article maybe you'd like to post a link for it. My comment is on what was actually posted.
To me the most salient point of the article is the last 3 paragraphs, and gives support to titled thread...
"Israel's sneak attack on a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression," the editorial states. "Even assuming that Iraq was hellbent to divert enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, it would have been working toward a capacity that Israel itself acquired long ago."
Israel absorbed the world's hatred and scorn for its attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. Today, it is accepted as fact by most arms-control experts that, had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have been a nuclear power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way across Kuwait.
The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.
This part is really what I disagree more with. I've already made my comment on the "morality" issue. Re the Israel sneak attack on the Osirak reactor I'm absolutely with the New York Times editorial excerpt except for the "short-sighted" qualification. While in this case pre-emptive action could have resulted in a positive outcome, to condone it in the light of the result obtained with the benefit of 10/20 years history to judge it, opens in my opinion a dangerous precedent in that it becomes acceptable that any state acts aggressively against another at its own discretion if the goal is in the long run considered "beneficial", the latter a concept way too blurred since it depends on who actually judges it. Israel itself holds nuclear power as other states like Pakistan and India do. Who can positively say that they are not going to pose a threat in 10/20 years' time? In 1981 Iraq was theoretically posing no more of a nuclear threat than Musharraf or even Isreal itself with nuclear power are posing now. While Israel's attack was claimed to have been performed as act of pre-emptive self-defence, what would Mr Goldberg say if say Syria or the Palestinians (if they had the power to do so) enacted a similar operation against an Israeli reactor alleging self-defense against a state who is hostile to them? I'd rather be careful in letting individual countries make certain decisions.