Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The WW3 talk is just fear mongering. None of the major players would benefit from it and hence it's not likely.
It doesn't appear that neither of the previous World Wars benefited anyone, but they happened anyway because of, among other things, escalating local and national disputes. Wasn't one of the reasons not to respond "irrationally" to various radical Islamic provocations exactly to avoid inflaming what the radicals wanted--a major worldwide jihad against the West and the infidels?
The point here wasn't to destroy all the chemical weapons, it was to send a message that the international community doesn't allow the use of them. At this point what's the cost of doing nothing?
-spence
|
Apparently, the "international community" is divided on many, many issues. Various nations within that "community" have stockpiles of such weapons. Not sure of why this international community would produce and stock stuff that it doesn't allow the use of.
And this "community" seems often to be paralyzed against "doing" something because, it seems, it usually contradicts itself. It really appears to be a house divided against itself, a rather rickety, crumbling house. Within such a "community" the cost of doing nothing, in the end, is not much different than doing "something."
The difference, when the dust settles, temporarily, is who gets what. Who is getting what in the dispute between tyrants and jihadists might make a difference to the U.S., but the tyrants may be more to our benefit than the others. And if it were really for the liberation of individuals from the oppression of a dictatorial State, and from the tyranny of an intolerant religion, it might be beneficial for us to actually fight for that liberation rather than merely send a message. Even unilaterally. But the Arab Spring, so far, doesn't indicate such liberation.