mini-nukes and isolationism
For goodness sake. Bush wants to lift a ban on developing “mini-nukes” (nuclear weapons only a third the size of the Hiroshima bomb…). There’s a rather obvious contradiction here, as has been pointed out:
Australia is tragically mimicking America in all this. At least Britain has said that perhaps we should wait a bit for the UN resolution. Johnny Howard says that a second UN resolution won’t be needed. And the “Be alert but not alarmed” campaign (the website includes the brochures that have been sent out to all Australian households as well as web versions of the television and radio ads) is just as calculated to spread fear and the idea that a war is necessary as the American ready.gov.
After standing aloof from the rest of the world (Kyoto, the international war tribunal, flaunting UN resolutions and now the mini-nuke thing) it’s never seemed convincing that Bush wants to wage war on Iraq because they won’t do what the rest of the world tells them to. In a press conference the other day he inadvertantly admitted to another reason that seems much more believeable:
“The fact that he tried to kill my father and my wife shows the nature of the man … he’s cold-blooded. He’s a dictator. He’s a tyrant,” said Bush. “And the decision I’m making, and have made, to disarm Saddam Hussein is based upon the security of the American people.” (a href=”http://www.timesreporter.com/left.php?ID=17179″>timesreporter.com, via Digby’s step by step discussion of what Bush said)
Yeah, sure. That and the oil.
2 thoughts on “mini-nukes and isolationism”
I really do not want to get into a protracted agument here, but have you considered the possibility that the US [& “johhny” Howard] might actually be correct about Iraq’s WMDs etc?
IOW, that *you* might be wrong about this?
As Bush says at regular intervals, I’ve thought long and hard about this. 😉