Cook sods off

March 17, 2003 4:30 PM

The resignation speech [Real, edited text] of Robin Cook, the ex-Foreign Secretary who led British troops into Kosovo, received a standing ovation in the House of Commons, something that hasn't happened in recent memory. The now leaderless House votes on the war tomorrow.
posted by Pretty_Generic (45 comments total)

Who's going to host Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous now?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:37 PM on March 17, 2003

class act that guy is. damn - britain just lost one of the good guys.
posted by specialk420 at 4:44 PM on March 17, 2003

A Labour politician with honour, courage & integrity?

Wonders will never cease!

MIND YOU, HIS PROTESTATIONS OF LOYALTY TO BLAIR MAKE ME WONDER OF HIS LONG DORMANT LEADERSHIP AMBITIONS...
posted by dash_slot- at 4:52 PM on March 17, 2003

I am sick at heart. He put into stark relief all my objections and fears. These are truly distressing times.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:54 PM on March 17, 2003

"If the hanging chads had gone the other way, we would not now be about to commit British troops"
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:00 PM on March 17, 2003

Well at least Mr. Cook can go back to writing his gripping medical thrillers.
posted by tittergrrl at 5:10 PM on March 17, 2003

Well at least Mr. Cook can go back to writing his gripping medical thrillers.

More likely, back to writing his racehorse tips.

Compare and contrast with the Bush speech, anyway.
posted by riviera at 5:33 PM on March 17, 2003

>Why is it now so urgent that to take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there 20 years and which we helped to create?

A one-termer knee deep in the oil business can't let an opportunity like this pass. Bush is going to leave this country an economic mess by the time we kick him out, but he and his buddies will be richer than ever.
posted by skallas at 5:55 PM on March 17, 2003

The Rt. Honourable Robin Cook--right and honorable.
posted by rdone at 6:02 PM on March 17, 2003

"Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate this invasion.

We cannot base a military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat."

The war will be over in two or three weeks. Then the interesting part starts.
posted by sacre_bleu at 6:11 PM on March 17, 2003

The resignation speech ... received a standing ovation in the House of Commons

Sounds like they were happy to see him go. "Gentlemen, I am leaving!" [standing ovation]
posted by kindall at 6:31 PM on March 17, 2003

I support Mr. Cook's decision to resign. I do not agree with his opinions on Iraq, but I think it's great that he lives in a society and worked for a government which allows people to dissent. Yes, unlike Iraq.

If Mr. Cook believes that the Iraqi opposition can speak with a similar voice, he is most certainly wrong. And, bizarrely, he seems to be protesting against us giving Iraqis the power of 'free speech' that he is himself taking advantage of!
posted by wackybrit at 6:48 PM on March 17, 2003

Mr. Cook is a coward. He should change his name to Cuisinier and take the last Eurostar for Calais.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:55 PM on March 17, 2003

Thanks, Paris. You really do have a knack for bringing class and maturity to a discussion.
posted by botono9 at 7:11 PM on March 17, 2003

Wackybrit, why is that so bizarre? This world has many injustices. There are many things I would change if I had the power. It does not follow that I must advocate war as the best means of effecting these changes.
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:21 PM on March 17, 2003

And, bizarrely, he seems to be protesting against us giving Iraqis the power of 'free speech' that he is himself taking advantage of!

No, he's protesting against us giving Iraqis a close-up demonstration of lots of bombs.

And go bite on a bretzel, Baris. You brick.
posted by riviera at 7:42 PM on March 17, 2003

Mars: It's bizarre because it has been shown that there is no other solution. France says it will veto any resolution drafted to disarm Iraq. Now, I love France, but that attitude is ridiculous.

I initially took an 'isolationist' POV on this issue, but it seems clear that a strong Saddam Hussein could wreak havoc in the future (he's no Fidel Castro fighting for what he sees as politically right even if we disagree).

War should be seen as the last resort for anyone. Sadly, we're in a situation where we have to take the last resort, thanks to France's promise to block any further UN resolutions.
posted by wackybrit at 7:47 PM on March 17, 2003

The U.S. also had a major resignation - John Brady Kiesling - served from April 1983 until March 2003 as a Foreign Service Officer of the U.S. Department of State. His postings included Morocco, Armenia, Israel and Greece. In 1994 Mr. Kiesling was one of a group of foreign service professionals presented with the Rivkin Award, given by the American Foreign Service Association for constructive dissent. Kiesling was also a member of the group of a dozen State Department officials that pushed for intervention in Bosnia.
Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant"** really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.











**"Let them hate so long as they fear." The quote is attributed to Roman tragic poet Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC). It is believed to be a favorite saying of the notorious Emperor Caligula
posted by poodlemouthe at 7:50 PM on March 17, 2003

No, he's protesting against us giving Iraqis a close-up demonstration of lots of bombs.

It is a sad fact of life that sometimes you have to do things you do not want to do in order to improve the quality of life for the majority.

If you'd rather Iraqis suffer agony over a prolonged period of time, than have a few be killed by accident in a quick war, then by all means go ahead and march for 'peace', but make sure you march for oppression while you're at it.

Imagine if this was 1939! Gee, all the new lefties would be screaming.. "No! Don't attack Germany! We might hurt Hansel and Gretel!"
posted by wackybrit at 7:54 PM on March 17, 2003

Don't worry, wackbrit: most Americans and Europeans over the age of 30 support the imminent war; it's just that younger people don't quite yet grasp the realities of the world; and European youth have a lot of free (often unemployed and underemployed) time on their hands to be seen and heard in the streets.

I'm sure the celebrating will start in Iraq as soon as they figure out that this time, the US is serious.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:04 PM on March 17, 2003

wackybrit, this is not a war for liberation. This is a war to protect America. Bush's argument is that America is under a DIRECT THREAT from Iraq and it must attack for its own self-defense. This is not a war for liberation, but that may be a secondary effect.

Refusing to acknowledge the reasons why the US is going to war (as stated above by its president) and focusing on the crowd friendly secondary effects (removing of a dictator) makes you come off as very disingenuous. Either you buy that Saddam is a direct threat to the US and war is the only recourse or you don't. Don't try to muddle things with a lame WWII analogy that doesn't even come close to applying to this situation.

I dont believe the hawks aren't even buying Bush's BS either.
posted by skallas at 8:04 PM on March 17, 2003

It should also be interesting to see how North Korea reacts to the war: should it be as quick and decisive as it will probably be, NK may just attack the south...."preëmptively: NK obviously does not view Iraq as any more "evil" than it is; and if the US can "arbitrarily" and easily take out Saddam, NK will have no reason to believe it's not next.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:09 PM on March 17, 2003

Either you buy that Saddam is a direct threat to the US and war is the only recourse or you don't.

War is not always started by the agressor. War is sometimes started for humanitarian purposes. Remember Serbia by any chance? Milosevic is now up in International Court for war crimes.

The President believes Iraq is a direct threat to the US. No lay-person could argue whether this is or true or not. The point of having leaders, therefore, is to trust their decisions on the classified information they have (and we don't).

We live in a world which is quickly developing international ideals and laws. We are NOT lone states anymore. Saddam Hussein has defied international law for too long. Either you support international law and sort him out, or you don't. Solving the oppression problem is, I agree, a 'crowd friendly secondary effect', but it is a noble one. Let the US and England uphold the international laws the UN is unwilling to defend.
posted by wackybrit at 8:22 PM on March 17, 2003

I thought Mr. Cook was very insightful, and I'm glad you posted the link, Pretty_Generic.

There was a lot more said in the realaudio clip than reported in the abridged transcript. In fact, I'd call it notes on the speech rather than a transcript of it.

What Cook said struck a chord in the logic centers of my mind. There is no international security issue here, and no moral high ground. Iraq poses less of a threat today than it has in many, many years. There is no reason to attack them but to further American prosperity and political power. But in the halls of the Bush Administration, that is more than enough reason to attack.

Kindall, you should watch the speech before you comment. It helps keep foot and mouth from meeting.

Wackybrit, please explain why you think Cook is protesting giving Iraqis the power of "free speech." I saw no reference in his speech that supports this. And, please explain why you think France promised to veto any resolution to disarm Iraq. Here's a blurb on France's actual stance, from MSN:

France: Open to dialogue but still won’t support any U.N. resolution that would authorize war on Iraq. France also has rejected giving Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disarm, as set in the amended resolution proposed by the United States and its allies, and hinted it will veto the proposal. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin described the deadline as a "pretext for war."

So, France was going to veto ultimatums and resolutions that clearly lead to war, not resolutions to disarm. Disarming was what the inspections were all about. War is about ousting Saddam and installing our own control over the region. Let the oil start ta flowing!
posted by Jonasio at 8:34 PM on March 17, 2003

If you'd rather Iraqis suffer agony over a prolonged period of time, than have a few be killed by accident in a quick war

Shock and Awe(TM) isn't meant to produce only a few accidental casualties.

, then by all means go ahead and march for 'peace', but make sure you march for oppression while you're at it.

Please say, with a straight face, that Iraqis are the only repressed people in the world that are worth saving at the expense of America's credibility and tens of thousands of lives.

The upcoming violence is about many possible things, George W. Bush's benevolence is not among them.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:38 PM on March 17, 2003

Wackybrit : Mars: It's bizarre because it has been shown that there is no other solution. France says it will veto any resolution drafted to disarm Iraq. Now, I love France, but that attitude is ridiculous.

Presumably almost as ridiculous as the US declaring that the results of the UN Weapons Inspectors are irrelevant, and that Iraq will be invaded regardless? As ridiculous as giving Iraq a 24 HOUR deadline? As ridiculous as claiming that the failure of the UN weapons inspection teams to find weapons of mass destruction just meant that Saddam was hiding them really really well and couldn't possibly be because they didn't have them? Using that logic, we should ask UN weapon inspectors into the USA to find those examples of downed alien spacecraft the US are plundering the technology from... what's that? The UN can't find them? That only proves they're well hidden!

As ridiculous as trying to make out that Saddam is - or could ever be, barring a miracle - a direct military threat to Great Britain or the US when we're complaining that his missiles have an illegal extra 30-40 mile range? As ridiculous as implying that Blix was covering up what amounts to a remote controlled plane with a wingspan greater than is allowed? Are these the feared weapons of mass destruction we're worried about?

As ridiculous as saying the US will do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and then introducing the world to the concept of "Shock and awe"? Introducing MOAB?

As ridiculous as claiming that Saddam's in bed with Osama Bin Laden when Bin Laden himself declares that Saddam is an infidel? As ridiculous as presenting "credible evidence" on Iraqi WMDs that turns out to be a post-graduate thesis over ten years old? As ridiculous as working all out for a second resolution and then - when you find you're not going to get one - turn around and claim it wasn't really all that necessary anyway?

Sheesh. If anyone has the ridiculous attitude round here, it's not France...
posted by kaemaril at 8:42 PM on March 17, 2003

What a fantastic speech.

Mr. Cook is a coward.
Unlike you, Paris, fighting the good fight, here on the frontline we call Metafilter. Fight on, you brave, brave soldier.
posted by holycola at 8:43 PM on March 17, 2003

Imagine if this was 1939! Gee, all the new lefties would be screaming.. "No! Don't attack Germany! We might hurt Hansel and Gretel!"

A compelling hypothesis, but how do you account for the difference that Germany had actually attacked someone at that point? And that Germany constituted a material rather than just an ideological threat? Please, illuminate....
posted by holycola at 8:47 PM on March 17, 2003

"most Americans and Europeans over the age of 30 support the imminent war"

Paris, could you please provide a source for this statement?
posted by advil at 8:52 PM on March 17, 2003

Paris if the war and its aftermath do not go well (major civilian casualties, destruction of Iraq without rebuilding, instability in other middle eastern countries) what are you prepared to do? Such confidence should be backed up by action.
posted by chaz at 10:33 PM on March 17, 2003

Jonasio said: So, France was going to veto ultimatums and resolutions that clearly lead to war, not resolutions to disarm. Disarming was what the inspections were all about.

And you think that after 12 years and 8 resolutions that Saddam is finally going to throw his hands up and say "I've had my fun, disarm me boys!"

Holycola said: but how do you account for the difference that Germany had actually attacked someone at that point?

Iraq has attacked at least three countries, and invaded one in the last twenty years. Iraq has fired SCUDs at Israel, invaded Kuwait, and had a war with Iran.. to name a few of its conquests.

The comparisons with 1939 are compelling, although they fall short in that Hitler was fighting to make Germany (and Germans) strong and able. Saddam, on the other hand, seems intent on mashing his people into the sand. If we don't stop it, someone has to, and as two of the largest world powers it's the least we can do.
posted by wackybrit at 10:42 PM on March 17, 2003

Wackybrit: The point of having leaders, therefore, is to trust their decisions on the classified information they have (and we don't).

So, somehow the CIA has this information, yet the Chinese, Russian, German, and French intelligence agencies don't? And, further, while we'll offer Turkey a $15 Billion dollar bribe to use their bases, we can't see our way clear to share at least some of this "smoking gun" evidence with any of our closest allies except Britain?

If we had evidence Saddam was planning to attack US/British/Peruvian/Whatever soil with a nuclear/chemical/biological warhead, France would surely fall in line. Lest we forget, they helped us in Afghanistan. But we didn't really have to make a case on the international scene for that. Classified information or no, the justification was pretty self evident. However, in this case, despite a clear lack of buy-in from most of our allies, we're forging ahead as though it should be clear to everyone we've got to do this right now.

Do you honestly believe Saddam's going to invade the US mainland--or anyone for that matter--in the next 90 days? If not, and if we're so sure the weapons are there, why not give France their pitiful 90 days and get our smoking gun and thus fully legitimize our position?

Sadly, we're in a situation where we have to take the last resort, thanks to France's promise to block any further UN resolutions.

Eh? What? France has called for a second resolution, and has only threatened to veto any resolution requiring the automatic use of your "last resort". Come on, surely either you are completely misreading the situation here, or you are being purposefully disingenuous with this. The US, on the other hand, has said they won't support a second resolution unless it includes a use of force clause. Who's plunging us into War here?

If you'd rather Iraqis suffer agony over a prolonged period of time

Since when did we suddenly become the Unilateral Rainbow Humanitarian Coalition of the Willing? This is about disarmament, and from all reports from the inspectors on the ground, it's happening. It may not be happening fast enough, but Resolution 1441 doesn't have clear time tables, and further, it states that the Security Council alone can decide whether Iraq is in compliance or not. And, from what I can see, the Security Council seems to believe Iraq is doing what it's being told to do.

We need a second resolution, and France would likely support one--just not one with an automatic war clause.

Now, if Bush wanted to make a humanitarian case for this war--as was done with Kosovo and garnered broad support in spite of the lack of a SC resolution--then he can have at it. But he's not. We don't get statements every day saying "Saddam is still strangling babies, we've got to protect those Iraqi babies and War is the only way" from Rumsfeld et al, we get statements saying he's not disarming--when all the evidence I've seen seems to support the contrary position.

I'd love to see Saddam gone, but I'd also like to see us cooperate with our Allies to make it happen. Blair has been one of our staunchest supporters, and Bush is busy signing his political death warrant with our unilateralism on this issue.
posted by Swifty at 10:59 PM on March 17, 2003

In case you've not heard, Clare Short has decided to stay, despite threatening to resign. On Today this morning they suggested Gordon Brown had something to do with this. He wants her in the cabinet when he's Prime Minister.
posted by Summer at 2:07 AM on March 18, 2003

Wackybrit: The President believes Iraq is a direct threat to the US. No lay-person could argue whether this is or true or not. The point of having leaders, therefore, is to trust their decisions on the classified information they have (and we don't).

What about trusting the former Foreign Secretary and, up until last night, a member of the British cabinet?

The comparisons with 1939 are compelling, although they fall short in that Hitler was fighting to make Germany (and Germans) strong and able. Saddam, on the other hand, seems intent on mashing his people into the sand. If we don't stop it, someone has to, and as two of the largest world powers it's the least we can do.


Could you elaborate on these compelling comparisons? Or are you just parroting the nonsense you read in the British tabloids?
posted by niceness at 2:10 AM on March 18, 2003

wackybrit: Robin Cook was Tony Blair's campaign manager when he was first elected; he was very, very close to Blair and will have been given every shred of information in an effort to prevent him resigning. And still he went. Blindly trusting people just because they're higher up in the hierarchy is something to be used in the military, not in a democracy.

My MP just resigned - Woohoo!

kaemaril: well said.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:24 AM on March 18, 2003

Cook's speech was very classy and insightful. I especially like how he highlighted many of the absurd inconsistencies of the US-UK reasons to go to war. Interesting how Wackybrit and the other bloodthirsty chickenhawks conveniently avoid the relevant points of the speech when arguing their case.

For instance, Cook points out that the last decade's containment of Iraq WAS working from a disarmament point of view. It had accounted for more weapon's destruction in Iraq than the Gulf War. Iraq has lost at least half of its military arsenal. The recently intensified inspections WERE working, with what is left of iraqui missiles being destroyed daily. Indeed, as we all know, the inspectors were down to uncovering the toy planes that could theoretically be used to blow up Washington and London (with it's diabolical radio operateor running below it for thousands of miles, trying to avoid tripping over stones and such).

Cook's speech also speaks of the contradictory and basically inept reasoning that the US-UK uses when advocating war (Saddam is so weak we can destroy him in days, Saddam is so strong he is a threat to the very lives of Americans and Brits).

Comparing Saddam to Hitler and 2003 to 1936 is so absurd as to be embarassing. Saying that the majority of Europeans support the war (at any age) is, well it's incorrect at best, but considering the source probably another calculated chickenhawk lie. Just look at the public opinion in Aznar's Spain, the shortest and silliest of Bush's savants: 90% anti-war.

Cook is a class guy. Blair, Bush and Aznar? Uh, no.
posted by sic at 3:59 AM on March 18, 2003

Mr Cook has proved himself to be a man of integrity, whether or not one agree with his political beliefs, and he rightly received a standing ovation from a house not known for its promptness to hearty applause. To claim anything else is intellectual dishonesty, but I suppose I should expect nothing better from this website.
posted by walrus at 4:09 AM on March 18, 2003

"agrees"
posted by walrus at 4:11 AM on March 18, 2003

And here is a link to the full transcript of Robin Cook's speech. Helps to know something about what you're desperately trying to debunk, perhaps.
posted by walrus at 4:51 AM on March 18, 2003

Iraq has attacked at least three countries, and invaded one in the last twenty years. Iraq has fired SCUDs at Israel, invaded Kuwait, and had a war with Iran.. to name a few of its conquests.

Responses were dealt out for the invasion and the firing of missiles, and the war with Iran was supported by those who lust for blood now. What's more, those events are long past and this is now. Where is the current threat? And back to the question, what makes Cook a coward for his position of wanting solid agreement instead of a cavalier attitude towards wiping out people in the name of... pick a reason, I guess, it keeps flip flopping like the dead fish of an argument it is. Face it, your position is bankrupt and you're cheerleading for whatever war your told to do it for. I'll bet Iraq wasn't on your mind a year ago, so dance monkey dance.
posted by holycola at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2003

All of your arguments are very compelling, yet they still don't address that Saddam is a mad man with crazy dreams who, if left unchecked, could have a very serious arsenal to deal with in years to come.

A wise saying goes.. the prevention is cheaper than the cure. That's all this comes down to.
posted by wackybrit at 7:00 AM on March 18, 2003

if left unchecked
...um... weapons inspectors...
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:09 AM on March 18, 2003

A wise saying goes.. the prevention is cheaper than the cure. That's all this comes down to.

Setting the Islamic world on fire, starting what could turn out to be World War III in order to to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly acquiring a serious arsenal of mass destruction in the future is a prevention more lethal than the potential disease.

And go bite on a bretzel, Baris. You brick.

I laughed out loud.
posted by y2karl at 11:01 AM on March 18, 2003

Once again, I offer the complete video, converted to AVI, if anyone has the server space to spare.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:12 AM on March 19, 2003

Setting the Islamic world on fire, starting what could turn out to be World War III in order to to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly acquiring a serious arsenal of mass destruction in the future is a prevention more lethal than the potential disease.

Yeah, sure. This is the thinking which gives way too much credit to an ensemble of primitive cultures, and way too little to the power and morality of the upcoming war. What, do you really think that most Muslims are so morally depraved as to not recognize the criminality of their rulers (As well as Saddam?). Who paranoid-coward-French of you!

I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam sends missles to Mecca and Medinia and then tries to blame it on Israel and/or the US...then things might get interesting, but still, WWIII won't start. Frankly, there can't be a WWIII because it's just the US at this point...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:28 AM on March 19, 2003