Again to dirty, dirty politics. Senior Card of the "President's" Evil Henchman Committee made a few ghastly remarks the other day, here quoted from the New York Times: "Asked for evidence to back up [the] assertion that Saddam had 'clear ties' to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, [Card said that] the Iraqi leader 'has had a history of a relationship with terrorist organizations in the past, and it would be horrible if his weapons of mass destruction got into the hands of terrorists.'"

When asked if the White House had plans to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, Card said, "Should Saddam Hussein have any thought that he would use a weapon of mass destruction, he should anticipate that the United States will use whatever means necessary to protect us and the world from a holocaust."

Who's pretending that he actually answered the questions? And wouldn't the massive use of nuclear weapons in a retaliatory action be the very definition of a holocaust? Why not just outlaw the things entirely? It's clear that the human race can no longer be trusted to handle such power responsibly, so draft a bit of international law that imposes massive consequences for any nation which uses a nuclear, chemical or biological device in any capacity, even for retaliation. Then all nations which sign the pact would be required to give up their arsenals. Let's say that some crazy-ass country like Iran did get their hands on a nuke or two, and used them against, oh, Israel, since they're closest. It's a horrendous thought, but Iran just shot it's wad, and if every nation with any kind of military force contributed to an invasion we would run wild and free over the remaining Iranian military within a few months. If the price for using a nuke or a chem/bio warhead was the total forfeiture of your military and governmental power and the certainty of your own and your advisor's deaths, would you press the button?

No comments: