1) Why is it not an issue that the US has weapons of mass destruction? Or China? Or Russia? Or the UK? Or Germany? Is Bush going to wade in and disarm all those countries too?
Well actually it is an issue, and in fact that's what keeps other countries from wading in and trying to take them away. Once a country has nuclear weapons, then it's the perfect blackmail tool to keep unwanted visitors out. Obviously some regimes are considered more responsible than others at their ability to guard these secrets and keep them from the hands of terrorists. North Korea is a perfect example of a nation that is desperate for money and would sell weapons like this to anyone for the right price should they manage to get nukes (if they don't have them already).
Basically Nuclear weapons are tools used to keep regimes in power, whether they be the USA or North Korea or Pakistan. It makes it too risky for another nation to risk trying to go in using force because they risk nuclear retaliation.
Personally, I'd rather North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc. not be allowed to get their hands on nukes because once they have them, then there's no telling what will happen. I can't guarantee that the US or Britain or India, or any other nation with nukes won't allow these to get into bad hands, but I certainly don't want them to propogate to other nations that most of the world consider unreliable.
Because, should a terrorist organization, i.e. an organization with no recognized state get their hands on something like that, they can use it with little or no fear of reprisal since they really have no home country, and then pick up roots and go hide somewhere. At least the US is trying to hold terrorists responsible, but as anyone can see, it's a very difficult process.
2) Why is it not an issue that the US has funded terrorist activity in the past?
This is a big issue. The US funded terrorists in Afganistan to defeat the Soviets, and the US supported Sadaam in his war against Iran as well. Every time this has happened, the "dog" has ended up biting the master on the hand and running away. Osama and Sadaam both got their starts from the US. I think we've learned from these mistakes. Regime change cannot be achieved simply by giving weapons to questionable groups. Rather, it is our responsibility to go in and take care of business ourselves and then spend the necessary money to do things right if it is at all possible. It IS possible. Japan and Germany are perfect examples. Japan and Germany already had excellent human resources on hand, plus very high opinions of themselves (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) so rebuilding was very successful except in places where the Soviet Union had control and generally made a mess of things.
I'm hoping that we take lessons learned and can do this right. Funding resistance groups on a low level can be useful, but for large-scale operations the US and the other responsible nations of the world MUST get their hands dirty in order to effect any sort of meaningful change. WWII is the best example of this, and Vietnam is perhaps the worst.
This comment was edited on Mar 21, 13:11.