Please critique my LTTE

[NewJeffCT]

Thanks... the original op-ed I'm responding to is below:

According to neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer, Hans Blix is part of the decadent European left crying wolf over global warming and hunger, saying it is a bigger issue than terrorism.

Joining Hans Blix as part of that decadent leftist coalition are those radical America-hating hippies at the Pentagon, who issued a report in February saying that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism and that the next big war will be fought over a dwindling food supply caused by droughts brought on by global warming.
Also part of this wild-eyed coalition of communists are other far left loonies like insurance companies and the World Bank.

Blix was right about WMD in Iraq, while Krauthammer thought we would be greeted as liberators with flowers thrown at our feet. Maybe we should listen to Mr. Blix again?
>>>>>

Original op-ed piece:
http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-krauthammer0709.artjul09,1,5378846.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Thank God for Hans Blix. Whenever we become lax and forgetful about how the world changed on 9/11, former chief inspector Blix is there to make the case for mindless complacency.

In a recent speech in Vienna he warned that one should be wary of the claim that "the risk that reckless groups and governments might acquire weapons of mass destruction is the greatest problem facing our world today." Why? Because "to hundreds of millions of people around the world, the big existential issue is hunger, and also that wherever you live on this planet, the risk of global warming and other environmental threats are existential."

[Rose Siding]

1. Good points

Since we didn't listen to Blix last time, maybe "this time" should replace "again" in the last sentence?

[rpannier]

2. Don't forget Faux news' resident hippie

shill o'lielly, who belives in global warming too. But, with shill's ultra-left leaning, why should anyone listen to him.
Very good piece.

[wadestock]

3. The problem I see in this....

Is that Hans should have omitted the phrase "reckless groups"...because this is in fact the real problem we face....NOT COUNTRIES developing WMD.

In the context of countries...WE have always led the world in these developments and been glad to share them with other nations. In terms of other nations....they basically develop these weapons for DEFENSE....and even if you don't believe that....the threat in terms of NATION vs US is down in the noise level.

So Hans would be essentially right....if he had restricted his statement to GOVERNMENTS acquiring such weapons....and that this is not necessarily the biggest deal in the world and nothing new.....in part because countries face much more pressing internal problems....but fundamentally because they are all in fear of being attacked by COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE US.

Now regarding "reckless groups".
This IS the threat we face....not IRAQ....and not AFGHANISTAN....but reckless GROUPS....
This is EXACTLY the reason why a takeover of IRAQ was not required.

Could be a dozen or so that can develop small pox, other simple to dispense effects (for which we still don't have much control over these readily available ingredients), or other mass murdering schemes that we must be so concerned about.....

BUT AREN'T........

That WAS the lesson of 911 which we have so illogically missed....right in front of our eyes.