Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,914 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In all the discussion about the current U.S. bombing of Libya, something important has gone almost unnoticedâ€"the lesson the United States is teaching the government of every country on earth. That lesson is: no matter what, no matter the inducements or pressure, never ever give up chemical weapons or a nuclear weapons program. Doing so will not ensure that the U.S. does not attack youâ€"on the contrary, it will make it much more likely.

The U.S. already delivered this lesson very powerfully in 2003 by attacking Iraq, a country which had no biological or chemical weapons or nuclear weapons program after 1991, twelve years earlier. Moreover, according to the CIA's 2004 WMD report, Saddam Hussein had begged the Clinton administration for better relations, promising that it would be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.†In fact, Iraq said that if it had a security relationship with the U.S., it would be inclined to permanently discard even the ambition for WMD.

In Libya's case, Moammar Gaddafi announced in December, 2003 that it was renouncing all WMDâ€"Libya possessed chemical weapons, ballistic missiles and a nuclear weapons programâ€"and inviting international inspectors to certify its compliance. The U.S. declared that this "demonstrates that, in a world of strong nonproliferation norms, it is never too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state," and that Libya would be "amply rewarded." From the perspective of many governments, Libya is now receiving its reward, in the form of hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and the likely downfall of the regime that agreed to disarm.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003470.html

So it seems the US doesn't want other countries to have WMD's so that the country has no deterrent that will stop us from intervening in their business and/or attacking them/bombing them in the future.

Kind of like how some US politicians only want the government to have guns, and want the citizenry disarmed. It makes the citizen wide open to attack.

Please read the entire article, as well as government officials saying almost the exact same thing, but in different words further on down the page.

While this almost seems counter-intuitive, I guess countries should not get rid of their WMD's unless they want to be wide open to interventionism by the US, and our current policy to stick our nose in everyone's business.

Remember, we are trying to help out a humanitarian crisis by killing people, bombing them. Remember, War is Peace.

Also, remember when you hear "NATO" that really is just another word for the US. It just makes the US look better if we use the word NATO.
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
Yeah we were talking about this when we were discussing Iran getting the materials for their nuclear power plant. Make sure there is no deterrent. I am sure this is what Washington had in mind when he warned against a standing army.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top