ok, one last practical question about disarmament…
suppose the arms inspectors continue in iraq and suppose they have extra u.n troops helping them and suppose they make sure that iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
then what?
then they leave, right?
and, here’s the very serious question, then what?
in a couple of years the arms inspectors leave and what’s then to stop saddam hussein from re-building his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction?
just a practical question that is worth addressing right now.
i think it’s safe to say that saddam’s logic might be:
‘ok, we put off our weapons programs for a few years. we accomodate the un and get them to lift sanctions. and then in a few years we have no sanctions, tons of money from renewed oil contracts with france and russia, and the ability to build a brand new arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.’
i’m not advocating war, but i do think it’s naive to think that saddam hussein wouldn’t build weapons of mass destruction once the inspectors leave.
and does the un really plan on having a permanent and extensive and diligent cadre of weapons inspectors in iraq for the next 100 years?
if we’re going to be pacifists we can’t be naive pacifists. we can’t see this situation in naive and unrealistic and short-sighted terms. saddam hussein has had extensive systems of weapons of mass destruction ever since he came to power in the early 80’s. do you really think that he wouldn’t re-build weapons of mass destructions once the inspectors leave?
how are the u.n (and france and germany and russia) prepared to deal with this issue in the long term?
moby