Let me go further.
If an Iraqi national were to blow up the West Wing of the White House with a grenade launcher, we'd call that a terrorist action and many people would be outraged. If we launch 40 cruise missiles at Saddam Hussein's location that is an attack on "command and control". By all accounts, both weapons are permissible in war.
Not to say that any of this is wrong. It's very clever actually.
If we actually wanted a fair fight, we'd buy some old Russian weapons, throw away our night vision equipment, take our planes out of the air, and turn off our satellites.
We don't want a fight fair fight. We will continue to say things to force Iraq to fight on worse and worse terms if possible. Pretty smart.
Maybe half of us feel that dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan was the right decision at the time, me included. For those of who do, why? When is using WMD permissible? To save our soldier's lives is our answer. Why would we expect someone else to act on a higher plane than us?
If any of our countries were attacked with conventional weapons and we were losing that war and would be forced to surrender soon, I have little doubt that we'd resort to WMD if the threat back against us from WMD was not too great. Of course, if IRAQ uses WMD in this particular instance the outcome of the war will not be changed and the coalition case will be proven.
|