THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[kisc]

Bush told the truth: The weapons existed

What do you all think of this? It is the opinion section of whatever this website is, where it belongs, but it seems to make a good point.

Not that I know what I'm talking about, which is why I hope someone smarter than me will have something to say.

....

Also, can you say deja vu[edit

Comments

[howardtayler]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html is another good dissertation on this

[howardtayler]

Minor correction: Kerry urged Bill Clinton to take military action in Iraq (1998). During the Bush administration he stated that he'd vote in favor of military action. If you'll read the link I posted, the paraphrases I've made can be much better clarified. Norman Podhoretz' writing is very thorough. My own is slapdash at best.

--Howard

[kisc]

Howard, thanks again for your comments. I've learned something, anyway.

Of course, I'm not necessarily the smart person you were asking for, just a bored LJer ...

[ruthanolis]

"First, Iraq did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction."

Yes, the big word there is did. As in, not anymore. And most definitely not by the time Hans "I'm looking for arms" Blix was doing his useless sleuthing.

"But the likelihood of the Iraqis destroying the WMDs on their own is negligible."

From what I remember, during the 80s and 90s the Iraqi government/armed forces gassed the hell out of the Kurdistan rebels in the north/north-eastern mountainous region of Iraq. Apparently it was almost genocidal in scope.
The possibilities then are three four: smuggled/exported, buried and hidden, destroyed or used before the Marines even arrived. Which would, if you think about it, be the best time for the Marines to go in.

Seriously, opinion pieces should always start with "Dear Sir/Madam" and end with "Yours sincerely/disgustedly/gratefully" ...
I don't remember asking for a journalists opinion ever. I know how they think. And they don't often as not. Just like the rest of us

Re: Of course, I'm not necessarily the smart person you were asking for, just a bored LJer ...

[kisc]

Ruth Ruth, you're plenty smart.

Thanks for your comments.

Re: Of course, I'm not necessarily the smart person you were asking for, just a bored LJer ...

[ruthanolis]

And I did look up that "iraq flypaper" Google. If I wasn't seeing things and you have since deleted that comment. I just didn't get about answering yet. ;)

Anywa, the only thing I'll say about that whole issue is this: Guerilla warfare [what's happening in Iraw right now] and terrorism [9/11. or 11/9 if you're from the more civilised parts of the Western World like Australia and the UK =P] are related, but they are two different things. One does not prepare you for the other. They just share some skillsets. ;)

[hemlock_martini]

I don't want to argue about the definition of "WMD"--after all, we sold Saddam his chemical WMD's back in the 80's--but as I saw it, selling the case for war in Iraq to the American public was hinged mostly on the idea that Saddam was ramping up nuke capabilities; hence the "yellowcake in Niger" fiasco. People are scared by chemical/biological weapons in the abstract sense, whereas nukes are much scarier. We've all seen images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And I agree with ruthanolis--there are plenty more tinpot dictators out there who pose more of a distinct threat to the US. We didn't go after them because they (a) don't have oil, and (b) never threatened George Bush senior.

[kisc]

google for the following:

iraq flypaper

Then come back.

And I very strongly recall Libya kowtowing like the bitches they are after the Iraq war started .... I don't know how to search historically through Google News, so I'm not having any luck finding the article. But the meat was "please don't invade us next, we'll be good." There is evidence (google news is good for current events, anyway) that they are moving towards a less barbaric attitude.

Your point about nukes may be valid, I don't remember the specifics. If you have suggestions where to look, that'd be fun too.

[hemlock_martini]

Khaddafi is looking out for Khaddafi, as always. There are more like him all around the world who won't be so ready to roll over.

See, here's my thing--everybody's assuming three points, that (A) you can have a war against an abstract noun like "terrorism," (B) that you can WIN a war against an idea, again like "terrorism" and that (C) once we kill all the terrorists there won't be any more terrorists. First off, you can't win a war against an idea, especially one so vaguely-defined and open-ended as "terrorism." Even the War On Drugs was more clearly defined, and as history proves, drugs are pretty much winning that one. The idea of taking up arms against what the impoverished see as a tyrannical oppressor who slanders their religion just by existing is an ancient one and won't be killed off by a land war in Asia. And terrorism is generational, it is self-perpetuating--how many young Iraquis will grow up and happily accept the idea of martyring themselves in attempting to kill the Great Satan who invaded their country, killed

[kisc]

How wrong country? You would prefer they do it here? Or am I missing something else

[mistergone]

Yes, Iraq is/was bad. We knew that.

Saudi Arabia is worse. They're the worst violators of human rights, they produce more terrorists than any other middle-eastern nation (including Bin Laden) and they have at least as much anti-American sentiment as Iraq.

But they a) have a lot of money and oil, b) have a lot of money invested in America and the Bush family's companies, c) have the support of the rest of the Middle East and d) sell us oil cheap.

[kisc]

I heard somewhen that Saudi Arabia is like the ancient seat of Arab civilization or religion or something, that if we were to do something like invade Saudia Arabia, then the entire middle-east would forget about Israel in the effort to go after us.

As resident smart person who knows a lot about religions and stuff, is that anything approaching accurate?

Also, you have a nice tushie.

[mistergone]

It's not strictly true - Islam has three holy places: the Mosque of Kaaba in Makkah (Mecca, Saudi Arabia); the Mosque of Muhammad in Madinah (also Saudia Arabia), and Masjid Aqsa, which is right next to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. The seat of Arab civilization could be considered Baghdad, which we're sort of rolling all over right now.

Muslims love Saudi Arabia because they have to journey to Makkah as one of the Five Pillars of Islam. That doesn't mean they necessarily love the Saudi government, which tends to exploit just about everyone for money. But thanks to oil, the Saudis win because of magical magical cash.

I'm not in favor of invading Saudi Arabia any more than I am in favor of invading Iraq. But if you were to do it, you could secure the help of the rest of Arabia first, especially if you promised no military action would ever make its way to Makkah.

[kisc]

Now I think about it, I suspect it was my stepdad who said that about Saudia Arabia. He's the guy who tells me that any time you wonder what the hell just happened, you need to follow the money, but he doesn't know everything, and apparently this is one of the places he doesn't have all the details.

Thanks for your comments. And thanks for all that you try to teach me. I'm pretty stupid sometimes, and you must get tired, but you're always there, willing to beat me with another fact when I start flashing my stupid around at people. That is perseverence, and I'm grateful, seriously.

This is another topic I'm going to have to sign off on for now. I don't know how you people keep up. I can barely keep up with the new spyware and viruses, most days.

There's too much chaos, too much hatred, too much intolerance. And all of it is caused by stupididity.

As my employer says, it is a good thing I have religion. Otherwise I'd be working actively towards the day that we wipe our species out completely.

[kisc]

I will post one last dissenting opinion.

If Bush were to pull our troops out of Iraq right now, there is a fair chance that the militants would take over inside of a week, and their program of racial purity would commence the next week.

Whether we're right to be there in the first place is a different question than whether we have a responsibility to depart with a stable government of some kind in place.

Because we do.

[kisc]

That's correct.

And what will happen if they get what they want?