.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cry Me A Riverbend II

Monday, May 24, 2004

Lets start with the basics

So often, certain bloggers talking about Iraq and also many many people commenting here start with the same falacious presumptions. I'm going to answer them here, and then I don't have to answer them any more...right. Hah! Suuure.
1. The Invasion of Iraq was unjustified because no WMDs were found

Wrong. While it is true that the Coalition invaded Iraq with the presumption that Saddam had WMDs (brace yourself) that was not the reason for the invasion. It's understandable that someone could be momentarily confused about this, but by now one really should have worked it out.

The US argued for the invasion of Iraq because Saddam had not complied with the terms of the UN ceasefire back in 1991. You see, Saddam was not just required to dispose of WMDs, he was required to VERIFY that he had done so. For that reason alone he was liable for invasion. (He was also not supposed to rearm afterward but I'll get to that in a minute).

[Edited to add an appropriate link.]

IF Saddam had no WMDs during the inspections in 2002, it seems very likely that HE did the fooling, not Bush and not Blair. I say IF that is true, then it seems that he wanted to simultaneously out-last the will of the UN to maintain sanctions AND keep the nations around him and the Kurds and Shi'a in his country BELIEVING that he still had them.

According to David Kay, while the inspectors didn't find WMDs, all the Iraqi commanders believed they existed -- but they always thought some other unit was the one that had them. So he was fooling his soldiers as well.

The French and Germans (although against an invasion) never disputed he had them either, because he behaved so guiltily. So should the Coalition...should even France or Germany...have accepted Saddam's "good word" that he didn't have WMDs, especially when he was all the time (wink, wink) implying that he did have them? No. And if UN administrators had not been skimming food and medicine away from poor Iraqis, no one probably would have. Saddam fooled us all. Too bad for Saddam.

David Kay also found evidence that Saddam himself was being fooled. Saddam himself thought he was conducting a secret nuclear program, but his scientists were hoodwinking him. And that was another reason he was not cooperating with inspectors to verify the destruction of those weapons. When the world eventually looked the other way, Saddam would surely have conducted a careful audit, found out how his nuclear program had gone awry and set it right again.

The CIA is taking a beating for not knowing that Saddam didn't have huge stock-piles of weapons for easy access all over Iraq. But, considering the deceptions folded within deceptions, can they really be blamed?

Once again, this is IF they weren't there in 2002. That is why 100 years of inspections would never have given us a reasonable assurance that Saddam had disarmed as he agreed to; as he was required to.

(But as comedian David Spade said, "If your Mom tells you, 'In four months I'm going to check your room for weed', when she finally checks your room, she's not going to find any weed. It's going to be at your friend Sudan's house.")

Furthermore, IF Saddam, after 12 years avoidance and lies had suddenly shown up with documentation and witnesses that he had destroyed his WMDs back in 1994, could we ever have been convinced it was not an elaborate trick? Could any assurance on Saddam's part by that time have being credible? Wouldn't we all have been patsies to believe it?

Now, AFTER the invasion, we KNOW that he doesn't have them anymore, and in the shadow of 9-11 you can hardly put a price on that sort of assurance.

So even if no WMDs are EVER found...even if they no longer existed in 2002...Saddam was flaunting the UN ceasefire, so there was 100% reason to take him out. Since he didn't verify that he got rid of them, the risk that he had them was all too likely, all too perilous, and all too real.

The Europeans seem to have a problem grasping this, but I think if they had seen their OWN economies wiped out...billions upon billions of dollars lost in a matter of hours, they would see things differently.

Finally, it doesn't really matter if he had got rid of them. He was secretly maintaining his ability to reconstruct his WMD programs...even his NUCLEAR programs...in order to rebuild them after the world looked the other way. So it hardly mattered if he did destroy his WMDs (which I doubt), and verified their destruction (which he didn't), and dismantled his WMD production capacity (which he at least did not think he had done). He and his sons were a menace, they would always be a menace. There was nothing for them but to take them out. No other option (unfortunately) was available.
[whiney voice]"But America has a nuclear program, why couldn't Saddam have them?"

Because, Iraq was unique among all nations on Earth in that they were expressly denied the right to have WMDs as part of the ceasefire agreement after she was driven from Kuwait by a UN-backed Coalition.

That's enough for today. Tomorrow, I want to talk about Majid and then the next day I move on to Abu Ghraib and other "war atrocities" of the Coalition.

2nd Update on Qadaffy's Fembots
Here's a news article about Momar's Angels taking on Egyptian bodyguards at an African summit.

This image was not referencible. It is a pic of a trio of sultry Momar groupies.

Here's a pic of Momar's top female hench. The inner core of his "deadly lovelies". She's a black belt. One article refered to her as "heavy-set" which I think is small minded. I say "bones are for dogs".


Post a Comment

<< Home