Originally posted by: Alistar7
"Bush seized on your fear, and you cling to it. Fear is your comfort. Your justification. So be it. The opposition had lots of legitimate reasons. Attacking a soverign nation because of fear. Saddam was on the run after we attacked. If he was this threat to the world, and he had the means, why were the weapons not used in combat? NOT ONE."
I don't live in fear, I do as I please when and where I want, as do most Americans I don't think or plan around possible terrorist attacks. There are other ways he was a threat to the world other than WMD, he was in geograpihcal position to wreak havoc on the worlds oil supply at will, and hand done so in the past on more than one occasion.
They had no legitimate reasons, exactly. Not one member on the UN security council dared to take Blair's challenge to publicly state before the war that they even believed, not knew, just believed Saddam had disposed of all of his WMD. Feel free to find me a link that shows who did, but I wouldn't waste too much time looking. They all knew Saddam had unaccounted for WMD, they were given the report right from Saddam admitting what they had (the mobile bio labs were left out for some reason), they all knew literally tons of those admitted WMD were still unaccounted for to this day.
Their opposition was based solely on money. Who holds the majority of Iraq's debt? Russia, France, and Germany are the largest 3. Who recieved the bulk of the money Saddam was able to control under the food for oil program? The French and the Russians. Who had oil deals in place should the sanctions be lifted? The French and Russians, who pushed for the early lifting of sanctions even when Saddam was still in power (but held them up after he was gone)? Yes, their only concern was the welfare of the Iraqi people, which is why they used every bit of their thankfully limited real power to keep Saddam propped up as the "leader" of Iraq.
Saddam knew he could not use the weapons in combat, whatever support he had left (had bought) was gone the second anything WMD was used. The French were trying to work on a deal with the US for Saddam to live in exile even after the war had started, nice to know they maintained good communication. More than likely they were destroyed as the invasion became imminent, as has been claimed by some within Iraq, that remains to be seen.
I have little respect for politicians as you well know. That includes Bush, Chirac, and almost anyone else you care to name. I do think Blair has quite a pair, to support the US. Now that does not mean I think him right, but Bush did little to help Blair domestically. Blair knew this in advance. You also know that I have not said that Saddam had no biological or chemical weapons. I thought he did. Frankly, I was greatly concerned that they would be used on our troops. BTW, Serbia has chemical weapons. Most countries do. The question is (or more precisely was) would he use them. The demonstrated answer was no. No greater provocation than invasion exists. He literally had nothing to lose, and if as some say, he was so dangerous to outsiders, he had great motivation to use them. Support? What support? When a man is chasing you with a gun, and you have one means of defense, you use it. Always. Who was going to rescue him. France? There was no deal that was going to work, and he damn well knew it. No, his best option was to kill as many as he could. You bet your azz he could use them and would if he could. He could not.
Now, lets go the other way for a moment. Suppose we find weapons, and they are significant in number. Well, he had the means and motive to use them. Let's suppose it is as you say, and he feared using them. That shows that he realized that using WMD's would get him even more dead. That is inconsistent with the premise that he would use them at all. If he knew using chemical or biological weapons would get him in trouble AFTER a shooting war started, he certainly knew it BEFORE. Again Saddam was a petty dictator, who wanted to control the Iraqis, and kept it local, because he KNEW from '91 that he would get his ass kicked. He was no threat to us. Now about the French and Russians. I assume they are looking out for their best interests, and you seem to find that objectionable, or at least less "worthy" than our motives. Yet in a prior post many of the arguments you make for removing Saddam were ones that involve US interests. The US economy tanking for example. Money. Frankly, I expect each country to look out for it's own. That is the responsibility of each government. US looks after US, France after France. Objectively, what is the difference. Now, I have said that attacking Iraq was wrong. I believe we launched a kinder, gentler Pearl Harbor. After all, the Japanese had their reasons too. Their best interests. THAT is the danger here. Lowering the threshold for war to include potential dangers. Everyone is now "right" to attack. All they have to do is point to our shining example. The fact that the Iraqis are rid of Saddam (which is the only good thing to come out of this fiasco) does not change the precident.
Now that I have clearly stated that I think what we did was wrong, I still believe that we can do some good there. We can, in spite of getting the lions share of business for the US, benefit Iraq. Or is it impossible for the US to do good if American companies participate? Obviously you do not think that. So, suppose others who did not agree with us before benefit, to what must be a lesser amount. You find it "wrong" or "objectionable"? It is less honorable to deal out money than death? No, each country used money or influence or death to get what each wanted. That is best left behind. Going waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy back to my original point. The important thing from the perspective of THE IRAQIS, is that they are able to take what they have, be able to work with the world (which to the suprise of many extended beyond US borders) and get on with it. They have to rebuild from abuse and neglect, and the war. Let this petty animosity die with the Saddam regime, and let the Iraqis decide what is good for themselves. Maybe they will think this deal will suck. Then people have a right to bitch.
Facebook
Twitter