Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Drake Tungsten]

And it may not quite have been able to reach America, but 1000km is nothing to sneeze at.

Certainly enough range to hit Israel...

[GePap]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten [
The threat to Iraq if Bush goes insane is miniscule, because of checks and balances on Bush's power, as the always insightful MtG pointed out.

I am intersted in what checks and balances exists on the president ability to use Nuclear weapons in an instant? Also, what do you think about the second question? The US is threatening constantly to attack Iraq, so doesn't that constitute a valid imminent threat on which Iraq can act?

If Iraq gets nukes, it would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East between Iraq, Iran, and god knows who else. You mentioned Pakistan and India in one of your posts and that is a great example of what we don't want; blood enemies facing each other down over a volatile border with nukes.

Iran already has reasons to develop nukes, in the form of Pakistan and Israel. Any state in the middle east has an interest in nukes to offset the Israeli nuclear arsenal. In fact, one could argue that any iraqi regime, Saddam or not, should get nukes to protect itself in a very dangerous neighborhood.

In addition, American freedom of action in the Gulf region would be severely compromised by the introduction of nukes, probably so much so that American military action would be unthinkable. If that happens, the stability of the world's oil supply is in serious jeopardy.

The stability of the worlds oil supply has nothing to do with America's unfettered action in the gulf. BUt you are right that Iraqi nukes under an anti-US regime would make the US's wish of controlling the region difficult- this though is a different arguement for attacking than 'Saddam is nuts' or 'Saddam is a terrorist', a sort of complex geopolitica arguemnt which the American people don't particuarly care about, which is why the US doesn't mention it.

Plus, there's the risk of Saddam deliberately giving nukes to terrorist groups or terrorists groups stealing them or buying them from corrupt Iraqi officials.

As others have said, Saddam can gain NOTHING from giving nukes to terrorists whatsoever. As for the corrupt giving them to terrorists, thast threat exists elsewhere, not just in apossibly nuclear armed Iraq.

Nukes would change everything in the region and I think the consequences are bad enough for America and the world that we should invade Iraq now, even with all the negative consequences associated with it. We should certainly do our best to gain UN approval, by letting inspectors have one more chance or whatever, but we have to stop Iraq from getting nukes. If that responsibility ends up falling solely on America's shoulders, then so be it. I certainly hope that doesn't happen...

Nukes would inherently change the situation, but that in itself means nothing. Nukes changed the situation in the Middle East already (Israel's large nuclear arsenal) and in South Asia. What has yet been proven is that any of the consequesnces require the war you state is necessary. Also, I hardly doubt the consequesnces will be as global as stated- this is mostly an issue of the US trying to maintain the strategic status quo, or imporving it in its favor, which is why the Iraq and WMD arguemnt has convinced so few as is.

[Drake Tungsten]

Also, I hardly doubt the consequesnces will be as global as stated

Almost every consequence in the Middle East has a global effect, due to the presence of most of the world's oil. If the world economy wasn't so desperately dependent on Mideast oil, I'd be all for leaving Saddam to his own devices. But that isn't the case, so someone needs to stop Iraq's nuclear program in its tracks.

[Uncle Sparky]

If the cartoon were edited so that the person on the left were dressed as an arab & labeled Arab world, the person on the right was dressed as & labeled Saddam & the explosion was labaled Iraq ...

would it be less funny or less meaningful ?