Aligherei Re...>>>There seems little doubt that the Bush administration's prime justification for invading Iraq — the fear that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction — was way off base. Nine months of fruitless searching have made that increasingly clear.
As Freddy Krueger would say "Imm back" To be truthful, I have a seasonal business, and I haven't the time during the working season to keep up. However, I do have a couple of months now, in the off season to continue my belligerent ways. I read the last 100 posts, and despite my laziness, I found the old adage; (The more things change, the more they stay the same.) to be mostly true. I say that in this case because of the last 100 posts, 2/3 of them said the same old things, with the same old arguments, by the same old people. I didn't notice one person here, of the regular posters from 9 months ago, who has changed his mind, on any of the major topics. Which seems to have caused a lot of stagnation here, as a lot of regulars aren't posting as much, so perhap a little new/ old blood might do us some good. Back to the topic.
Last winter, I said that while the WMD were the stated reasons for going to war, the real reason for the war had far greater implications, which is the establishment of a democracy in the middle east, and that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were the best option, of all of the states, to do that. One night in fact, I told you that whether Saddam had WMD was immaterial, as the US would find enough other horrors there, which would justify the war; however, I felt confident the US would find some WMD. Nothing has changed, despite the war to change my assesstment. While WMD haven't been found. the US did find a lot of mass graves, use of terrorism by Saddam to control his people, conveniently put on tape, for the world to see. So, now the world can breathe a collective sigh of relief Saddam, and therefore, the terrorist don't have WMD, and GWB still will win, because the world is happy to be rid of one of the worlds true villains. WMD or no WMD, Iraq is rid of Saddam, and can now finally rejoin the international community, with peaceful elections, and a gov. who cares for its people.
They depict a world in which Saddam Hussein, though undeniably eager to make Iraq a threatening world power, was far from any serious steps to do that.
I am surprised you didn't highlight this statement, as this statement highlights the main reason for sanctions, with or without WMD, and is the main reason GWB will win in Iraq, and why the far left doesn't get a large percentage of people who care about WMD anymore. To paraphrase one of your favorites, " Its the sanctions stupid." The sanctions were killing the US's standing in the arab world more than the Palestinian issue. In his speeches, OBL often denounced the sanctions as one of his main causes for his hatred. Whats worse, most of the UN food programs, and liberals, like Ramsey Clark played up the horrors bought upon Iraq, by the sanctions, while omitting or denying Saddams involvement, in that Saddam was using the oil for food program to build palaces, and buy weapons to continue his terror, not feed his people. IN the end, it became obvious the sanctions had ceased to achieve the purposes they were enacted for. France, Germany and Russia were for continued, and even stricter sanctions, because it enhanced their image in the arab world, and the sanctions eliminated their competition, while they secretly shipped arms,and enacted secret deals with Saddam to undercut the sanctions. But to the US and Britain, who had to do the flyovers, and enforce the sanctions, there existed no other option, but to end the sanctions, and to do that, either Saddam had to come clean, or be eliminated. The far left wants to argue that the WMD themselves, and only the weapons had to be eliminated. I would argue, that it is the sanctions, which had to be eliminated, and in order to stop them, the US had to make sure there wouldn't be any current, or future WMD in Iraq. In that statement, the author of this article confirms the impossibility of ending the sanctions, because Saddam still harbored a desire to obtain those weapons, and even the staunchest opponents of the war, France Germany and Russia, all agreed that until Saddam came clean, the sanctions couldn't be ended.
Many here on this board wonder why, the Bush lied argument isn't working with the public. Part of it is that the far left itself can't decide whether the sanctions were good or bad. Some on the far left, Ramsey Clark,OBL, most of the arab states, etc. argued against them, while all of the western states opposing the war argued for even stricter sanctions. Ted himself, on this board almost 2 yrs ago, went ballistic, against the flyovers, demanding their demise, and yet, 6 months later he sides with France etc, saying the sanctions are the answer. In the end, the US had to get rid of the sanctions to get credibility in the arab world,and with Ted, which meant Saddam either had to change or go. That statement by this author confirms Saddam had no intentions of changing his desires, whether he currently had them or not. |
