Dom perhaps we are misunderstanding each other due to the heat of the moment. Lets all take a deep breath and collect ourselves and go from
I am without any doubt against the use of Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons of any kind. In respect to its application under condition, in which
the use of those weapons results in the targeting of innocent civilians.
I am as well very much against the use of military tactics applied consciously. And in a premeditated manner against unarmed and non-combative
innocent as well as unaware citizens.
Both to me are criminal acts, which in no means should be treated from the standpoint of maintaining in any way. The presumption by those who commit
them as acts which are permissible. My impression is that if such acts are not responded to with the most serious of consequences (War). We as a
culture are setting a precedence whose ramifications go beyond our worst nightmares.
Our technology has reached a point in which realistically speaking, no country in the world does not have knowledge specific to applying the above. As
a reuslt we as a world culture must engage any leader who acts to apply the above for political, financial or any other potential benefit to himself
of his/her administration.
Clearly these acts have been committed by Al-Quaeda and as well by the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Al-Quaeda the act was blatantly
criminal. Osama bin Laden despite claims that he was not involved has since the date of 9/11. Presented himself in the media, clearly both he and
those he designates with special celebrated the event.
That is included in this link...
Now there is a problem and it is in respect to how the world as a whole. It is in respect to a leader of a country, which by the very virtue of his or
her position has access to billions and even trillions of dollars. If such a person commits his recources, by applying such weapons. As has been
discussed here purposefully against innocent people.
There is also an issue when a leader engages in the use of said weapon against both combatants and non-combatants in respect to a preemptive
Furthermore, in respect to how such issues were resolved in the past. My impression is that we have a significant problem here.
Germany in WWII attempted to justify its acts against the Israelis in respect to an invasion. Truthfully it was one one which was subtle and ill
defined. Nonetheless was still presented an an invasion. The Kurds do not in fact verify the information you have provided. Rather they state that
they themselves were openly defiant, much to the extent they have always been to Saddam rule.
There is no difference
What are your thoughts?
[Edited on 27-3-2003 by Toltec]