Is there no difference now (with regard to declaring war) between countries who HAVE WMD's (or might have, or

Question

want them) and those that actually USE them?

Surely military action by Yankees (and Brits) should only follow the USE of these weapons? Or else we are the aggressors and it is a preemptive, immoral war?

Are they going to make the same mistake with Iran as they did with Iraq

Answer 1

I think we are frightened of making the same mistakes of the last world war. We have to preempt an agressive dictatorship before it becomes too late.

Answer 2

Well, you're on the right track... it sure has become complicated. For one, well, there's no one actually even declaring war... in the USA, only Congress can declare War. But as Commander-in-Chief, the President can technically order the troops to invade any sovereign nation for any reason. It used to be done largely after a war was declared, but unfortunately, the US Constitution didn't lock these together in any way.

You might also have noticed that the BIG reason we "knew" that Iraq had WMD is simple -- we, the USA, gave them WMD, and also looked the other way when they were making their own chemical weapons. This was, of course, all done in secret, and these weapons were only to be used against Iran. Much as the weapons we gave to Osama bin Laden and his gang of barbarians in Afghanistan were only to be used against the Soviet Union. Problem is, sometimes, this meddling gets out of hand. It's like that, when you're dealing in black ops with crazy or evil people, even if you think it's for a good cause.

Bush and Co. are so very much working toward making precisely the same mistakes in Iran. Hopefully, Congress is not simply going to rubber stamp this behavior.

The theory behind preemptive invasion make a little sense on the surface. If you KNOW that a country has WMD, and they're bent on regional conquest, and they're run by a crazy or evil person, such an invasion can, in theory, prevent undue destabilization of the region. In the case of Iraq, these conditions were almost true... we knew that HAD had WMD (we Saddam have them, he used them against Iran and against his own Kurdish population), we knew he was an evil SOB, and we knew he had, at one time, had designs on regional conquest. And, of course, the is oil there, so destabilization would be a Really Bad Thing... oil prices could go up :-)

Thing is, no one in the Bush administration actually studied the real situation in 2002. Saddam had largely been tamed.. sure, he was a bad guy, he was committing small atrocities within his country. But that's a job for the world to condemn, not the USA alone (well, ok, with the UK and a handful of tiny commitments from a few others).

And ironically, it's all come out this week that the one positive effect the invasion of Iraq has had in the region -- it seems that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Their goal was set on preventing aggression from Iraq, not conquering the world and endangering Americans (anyone actually understanding the scale of things here, the difference between one atom bomb and a nuclear arsenal, the difference between a bomb and an ICBM, etc. needs to do their homework). Anyway, hopefully that report, our own intelligence assessment, is enough fuel to prevent making Iran another (and worse) Iraq.

Answer 3

Dictators,idiots and self do not fit as button pushers?your call

Answer 4

Depends on those three little letters OIL

Answer 5

Who are we to judge which country has weapons or not.....