The costs of erring on the side of caution are almost always better than erring on the other side.
So... what is the side of caution?
Regarding Iraq, I'd argue that the USA demonstrated extreme caution by letting Saddam VIOLATE the dozen or so UNSCR's, which served as the armistice for the Gulf War, for a decade.
During this time the USA and the UK operated two huge NO-FLY ZONES over Iraq in order to protect the Kurds and the Shias from Saddam. THIS COST BILLIONS EACH YEAR.
Then - (with the sanctions regime under serious threat, i apost-9/11 world, and with our troops in Saudi Arabia -- there to protect them from Saddam -- a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda) - Bush erred on the side of caution by giving Saddam a "last chance" by getting a unanimous UNSCR - #1441.
Then, Bush gave Saddam ANOTHER last chance in the form of a 48 hour ultimatum.
Only then was America's patience worn out by Saddam's continued defiance. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF UNSCR#1441 - so saith David Kay:
(In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. )
and Hans Blix:
Jan. 27, 2003 – After 60 days of inspections by U.N. officials, Iraq appears not to be cooperating with Security Council Resolution 1441.Now - regarding Iran: After TWO DECADES of LYING and VIOLATING THE NPT, our patience is wearing thin, again. But this time, our patience is up against a clock: everyday the Iranians get closer and closer to making enough enriched uranium to make their own nuclear bombs.
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace," chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told Security Council members this morning.
BBC:
But we might not be able to even employ the sanction strategy at all - because Russia and China oppose it and they have vetoes.
That doesn't leave many proactive options. The best is a massive preemptive attack by the US against Iran - one which would destroy Iran's nuclear assets, military assets and refining assets.
Many fear what repercussions might be unleashed if we preemptively attack Iran in order to destroy their nuclear assets. They fear the "Arab Street", jihado-terror (as if we don't have to worry about that anyhow!), and they fear it will make the USA disliked.
Those fears pale in comparison to what the worlds will look like if we do nothing and let it Iran get a nuclear arsenal.
Half the world was held hostage by the USSR for half a century because it had nukes.
Do we want that to happen again?
It will be worse this time, if we do: jihadism is more evil than communism, and jihadists are more likely to use nukes than commies were.
We never ever saw, heard, or read about commies beheading hostages, or blowing up churches or mosques or synagogues, or mutilating the corpses of those they murdered.
All these things have happened in the name of jihad, and we must take that into account.
We must attack Iran and we must do so BEFORE they have a nuke.
Which means it must occur BEFORE there is a smoking gun.
If we are to be cautious.We must be cautious - and that means we must take action.
Waiting for proof they have a nuclear bomb would be waiting until it is too late.
Without the transparency and inspections we need to be sure they don't have a nuclear weapons program, we must act. We must attack.
I think Bush must act before he leaves office.
I think it will occur between April and September.
Iran's track record of hiding nuclear activities means the UN cannot be sure about what Iran is doing now, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has said.If Iran won't let us - the UN's IAEA - inspect their nuclear assets and shut down their enrichment array, then we must act. Sanctions will take time to work - IF THEY WILL WORK AT ALL. (They didn't work against Saddam; they might not against Iran.)
Mohamed El Baradei was speaking as the IAEA's governing board met in Vienna.
Last week, he said Iran had been more open about its past, but still enriched uranium in defiance of the UN.
Western countries are seeking further sanctions fearing Iran's programme is not peaceful. Iran says it co-operates and there is no need for sanctions.
Mr El Baradei told the meeting the IAEA was "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.
"This is especially crucial in the case of Iran because of its history of undeclared activities, and the corresponding need to restore confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme," he said.
The IAEA is meeting to discuss what to do about Iran, and in particular, whether to move towards imposing tougher sanctions on it, as some Western states want.
The US and its European allies who are permanent members of the UN Security Council - France and Britain - fear Tehran is enriching uranium in order to build nuclear weapons, and are pushing for a third round of UN sanctions.
But we might not be able to even employ the sanction strategy at all - because Russia and China oppose it and they have vetoes.
That doesn't leave many proactive options. The best is a massive preemptive attack by the US against Iran - one which would destroy Iran's nuclear assets, military assets and refining assets.
Many fear what repercussions might be unleashed if we preemptively attack Iran in order to destroy their nuclear assets. They fear the "Arab Street", jihado-terror (as if we don't have to worry about that anyhow!), and they fear it will make the USA disliked.
Those fears pale in comparison to what the worlds will look like if we do nothing and let it Iran get a nuclear arsenal.
Half the world was held hostage by the USSR for half a century because it had nukes.
Do we want that to happen again?
It will be worse this time, if we do: jihadism is more evil than communism, and jihadists are more likely to use nukes than commies were.
We never ever saw, heard, or read about commies beheading hostages, or blowing up churches or mosques or synagogues, or mutilating the corpses of those they murdered.
All these things have happened in the name of jihad, and we must take that into account.
We must attack Iran and we must do so BEFORE they have a nuke.
Which means it must occur BEFORE there is a smoking gun.
If we are to be cautious.We must be cautious - and that means we must take action.
Waiting for proof they have a nuclear bomb would be waiting until it is too late.
Without the transparency and inspections we need to be sure they don't have a nuclear weapons program, we must act. We must attack.
I think Bush must act before he leaves office.
I think it will occur between April and September.
1 comment:
I hope you are right. I think you probably are.
Post a Comment