Lizzie, sorry, but the fact that Saddam has not (yet) used chemical or bio-weapons in no way supports the conclusion that he has none. If you've been paying attention, then you've surely heard that his using them would bring France into the war on our side, along with others surely, and would destroy any chance he has for survival. His strategy, most observers agree, is to hope for (or create) massive destruction and civilian casualties in hope that public sentiment in the US and pressure from his friends in Europe would force Bush to stop short of complete defeat of his regime (like Bush 41 did). If he uses them at all (assuming he is even still calling the shots), it will likely be once allied forces have advanced much closer to Baghdad. Using them would either be a desperation move or an attempt to paint an ugly picture of civilian deaths that he would hope to blame on or at least break the will of Bush.
As for "breaking up OPEC" as the motive for the war, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "Bill Kristal says so." First of all, I doubt he said it was motive, though he might think it a side benefit. Second of all, there is no reason to think that a free Iraq would have any less interest in maximizing profits from oil. Plenty of nations friendly with the US are members of OPEC. That said, do you think it would be a bad thing if OPEC was weakened? As a side benefit? |
