With Saddam arrested, who needs WMD?

Remove all ads!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=474598

What do you think? Saddam is barely arrested, and Mr. David Kay, after fruitless earch, returns to the US, only 40 of the original 1400 weapon searchers are still at work today. How comes?

 

If this isn't a classic response, I don't know what is. "What's the difference?" ?? Most of the economically solvent countries in our world (and some that aren't) have WMD "systems" or at least the fixins' to be considered a potential threat to neighboring countries and the world at large. Since when do we wage war on countries that are, simply put, "dangerous"? "What's the difference?" I would love to see Bush stand before the UN and give that response to its members. The only excuse we haven't heard yet is the "bad seed" rationale. But wait...(I'm sure that's next.)

 

BTA, I'm certainly not debating that point. It was hashed out ad nauseum here in the Alley and the arguments don't bear repeating now.

What gets me about the "What's the difference?" line is the assumption that Americans aren't supposed to remember - or, perhaps, CARE - that our national credibility was put at stake for the sake of weapons that have proved to be ephemeral. But I guess that credibility with other nations doesn't really matter once our "Imperial/Emperical Aspirations" have been achieved and there ARE no other nations for us to be concerned about.

 

Well it seems like the WMD's werent such a big issue after all. Atleast Bush II dont think so, now it seems that Saddam might have been able to create WMD's sometime in the future. Heck, I could maybe create a bunch of WMD's in the future. Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html?ex=1072774656&ei=1&en=edaa7b66df3a0191

 

I consider that a tacit admission that this is a war of aggression.

 

When having enough military power and ambitions, who needs a valid reason for war?

 

BTA, that's not the point! Getting rid of Saddam does not justify Bush lying about the reasons for going after him, and further more dismissing those who insist he answer for the case HE made. The fact that no WMD have been found and the ease with which we toppled Saddam's regime makes it screamingly clear that Saddam, though probably a danger to his middle-eastern neighbors and certainly a criminal, was never a danger to the United States. What's so wrong with holding the Bush administration accountable for it's own claims? "Sure that's what I said. So what? We all know he COULD have been dangerous." This is a respectable position the leader of the free world should take? Spare me!

We all know Saddam was evil, dangerous and had a black history. He needed to be taken out - no question. But that doesn't excuse the misrepresentation of motives. The end does not justify the means or the price we've paid.

This has now become a classic case of the boy who cried wolf. Our credibility is now shot. So now, in the future, when we really DO have concrete evidence that anothe nation poses an imenant threat, who in the world will believe us?

 

Death Rabbit -- well said.

Why must it always be the US's responsibility and initiative to take these people out? Does this country truly wield the moral yardstick for the world at large?? Every country in the world must measure up to our version of morality? Where is it mandated that the US always leads the charge? I just don't see why this country ALWAYS has to try to assimilate other country's ideologies and political/economic systems into our own, in the guise of "making it better for all".

 

Well, I can't resist. Did these allies ask the U.S. to invade Iraq? No, quite the opposite. So if The U.S. wasn't trying to protect itself, and was actually "helping" nations that didn't ask for the help, where's the justification now?

Edit: BTA, there's a difference between not helping when asked, and getting involved when not asked.

 

"Taking part" is a little different. I have no problem with that...in a balanced multi-country initiative. What I was referring to is the need to lead the charge....almost like by divine order.

 

Harmony? Without us at each other's throats, it'd be no fun.

 

On the contrary BTA! It's the differing opinions that MAKE a debate and enjoyable reading....no matter how popular they be. If everyone had the same opinion here, it'd be pretty damn dull. (There's only so many times you can agree with someone.)

 

Interesting analogy, BTA. Try mine.

If your doctor tells you that you will die of cancer if you don't have surgery to remove your arm, right now and without a second opinion, you would do it? And once your arm is off, and the nurses can't find a tumor or cancerous cells anywhere in your arm, the doctor tells you "What's the difference? You COULD develop cancer in that arm. You're better off. In fact, you should thank me."

I'm sure you would find that acceptable.

 

This is true. Not even the harshest anti-war people demand the immediate withdrawl of the occupation forces from Irag - because it would invite desaster. For no other reason.
Now, that the old regime has been ousted, civil war would be likely to ensue without a stabilizing presence. This most certainly doesnt legitimize the lies we have been fed.

The viewpoint of the people here is: We were against it, we were not heard, but the deed is done and now we must make the best of it. However, this does not ease the frustration and anger many feel.