[Previous entry: "Lasagne"] [Next entry: "All-nighter"]
music: Silverchair - Emotion Sickness
Check out is a very detailed, and as far as I can tell, objective, sumary of the Iraq WMD question. There are many declassified documents that, from my cursory look, show that while those who had access to them could not be sure that Iraq had WMD, made it pretty clear that Iraq had the capibility and will to make them, and free of inspectors (as it they were from 1998-2002), could have restarted many of its WMD programs.
My conclusion: The Bush administration was not precise with the facts - many unknowns were portrayed as truths, and counterevidence was concealed. These tactics were undoubtably to bring the American people around to support the initial invasion. However, it is also easy to see what the administration was afraid of, and why they thought it was so neccesary to go to war in the first place. Certianly, they didn't know that there were WMD in Iraq, but I think they did believe in the existence of the WMD. Furthermore, give me one politician today who hasn't overstated the facts and I will be forever endebted to you. This is not an excuse, simply a political reality in today's America.
The real questions that need to be asked are these:
"Is the world better off for Operation Iraqi Freedom?" (I say yes; if you disagree let me know why)
"If so, was it worth the price?" (We have yet to see the real price, and real gains that might come of this... the jury is still out).
Replies: 1 Comment
on Monday, March 8th, Chris Vincent said
"Furthermore, give me one politician today who hasn't overstated the facts and I will be forever endebted to you."
Well, the majority of these facts weren't used to perpetuate a war. War is something that should never be considered a small matter, and the majority of wars in history bring shame to those who have started/declared them.
"Is the world better off for Operation Iraqi Freedom?"
Not the way it's being handled right now. Iraq may have been under the rule of a cruel dictator, but now they're under the rule of unknown and unpredictable terrorists. I'm sure you won't try and feed me bullcrap that they were already there, being "harbored", like the Administration tries. We all know that the majority of these terrorists are foreign, and they're taking advantage of the lack of establishment in Iraq caused by the war. This is the same way the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan; war creates a vacuum in authority that can be filled by anyone, even the most merciless and violent people on Earth.
Plus, the war is only a piece of the overall plan. Search for "neo conservatives" and "iraq" on Google, and I'm sure you'll turn up some interesting new knowledge. Is the idea of a democratic Middle East pleasing? Yes. But should the US be the one coming in and "establishing" it? Nope. That leads to, among other things, a masked version of colonization. In a country that won its independence as colonies, we should be appalled.
The all leads to bigger questions. There should be more than one superpower in the world, or you have a potentially more violent, tyrannical form of a monopoly. One country's vote brings the whole world with it; ironic that we're internally a democracy. Second, being a superpower should mean a LOT more than having the most nuclear/military capability.
Disarmament should be a worldwide policy; if Iraq can't have nukes, why should we? I know that Saddam isn't exactly the kind of guy you want with bombs, but we're no more qualified; there's no justification for any man or group of men to have that kind of power to devastate.
I've gone to ranting. Perhaps I should blog about it.