We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Former UN Inspector says Saddam has nukes Many thanks to Instapundit for pointing me to this article by Trent Telenko. The whole article and all his links are interesting reading, but this one is evidence for the nightmare scenario. I very strongly suggest everyone read it. Tell everyone you know: some of the first round UN inspectors believe Saddam already had nukes in 1997 and prevented them from getting at the things. This is enough to give you chills.
I just pray (for what its’ worth from a nonbeliever) we don’t lose a city before we cure the problem at source.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Newsmax has a reputation for being fast and loose with the facts.Let’s hope that’s the case here.
Dale, ‘fraid it makes no difference. No matter how much evidence piles up about Saddam, the isolationists will poo-pooh the evidence, play it down, or say that there’s nothing much we can or should do about it anyway.
I have a wee challenge for the libertarian isolationists among us – what the heck would you ACTUALLY DO? And don’t evade it by denying a problem exists.
I’m kind of puzzled myself – just what alternatives could there be?
Sanctions haven’t worked all that well, it would seem. The palaces Saddam’s been putting up with money that should haven been used to feed his people are proof that he doesn’t give a flip about the Iraqi people.
UN resolutions without teeth behind them are essentially toilet paper. All the wishing otherwise is futile.
Inspections – without the threat of force, does anyone seriously think that there would be inspections at this point?
Containment? Well – he won’t stay within his borders unless there’s a reason, that’s been proved. So, you need military force to keep him contained.
Looks like the non-violent means have been pretty well exhausted. What COULD be done, without the use of force?
J.