JONES:

Writing in the Spectator this week Rod Little said this, there’s something terribly primitive about bombing the hell out of a country simply to get rid of one man. He said so we plan to send in expensive bombers and those weapons are fairly widespread destruction, and missiles, perhaps thousands upon thousands of ground troops too, in order to be rid of him and install someone marginally less despotic. It seems an awful lot of effort just for Saddam. There is something terrible primitive isn’t it about bombing the hell out of innocent people in order to get rid of one man?

PRIME MINISTER:

Alan this is the awful dilemma we all face, but what is the alternative if Iraq continues not to comply? Now if we go back to the basics the reason I believe this issue is of direct concern to Australia is that we cannot run the risk of the twin evils of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states like Iraq and more, you can’t run the risk of that combining with international terrorism and the more countries that have these weapons, the more rogue states that have them the greater becomes the possibility that they will give them to terrorist organisations. And marry two things and you have a terrible potential outcome for the world…

JONES:

I think everyone agrees with that, what they’re saying is how can you get rid of this man? This fellow also said in the Spectator, quote, we have technology so good now that it could from a distance of 8,000 miles pick out of a crowded shopping street (inaudible) and reduce him to a swift discussion of traumatised and very hot molecules. In other words the technology exists to remove one man without removing innocent people. Is that an option that’s not available?

PRIME MINISTER:

I did read that article, I think the experience in Afghanistan has demonstrated that even with enormous sophistication it can’t necessarily be certain of wiping out of one targeted person. I don’t think it is quite as simple as that.

THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP