Russell Mokhibar: If India adopted the Bush administration's policy on
preemptive attack, vis a vis let's say Pakistan, or if China adopted the
Bush administration policy on preemptive attack, vis a vis Taiwan, would
you consider that a lawful policy under international law?
Ari Fleischer: Well, I think what's different is the unique history of
Iraq and the irrationality of Iraq. Different policies work in different
regions of the world, and different doctrines work at different times
and in different regions because of the local circumstances. Policies of
containment work more with a rational figure than with an irrational
one. That's why the policy of containment worked vis a vis the Soviet
Union. Iraq, on the other hand, given its military history, given the
amount of weaponry that Iraq has acquired that they have actually used
to invade their neighbors, to attack their neighbors, to launch missiles
against their neighbors, has not been deterred by such policies in the
past. Given the fact that an irrational leader who has a history of
military force and military use and military aggression and domination
may acquire a nuclear weapon, the question is, should it be the policy
of the United States to do nothing, and allow such a leader to acquire a
weapon that he could then use to blackmail the world and blackmail the
region, and even use it to harm us.
(the content of the previous two posts owe props to becknews)
[09:53] <@johnnywhy> driving in manhattan is like trying to fuck a drunk wolverine. EVen if you get where you're after, you'll be a mess afterwards.