> So what? That's history, as 41 used to say to dismiss something as
> irrelevant. Or, that was then, this was now. Saddam (or my role
> model, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) was an important ally in our struggle
> against Iran (or the USSR). But they've since gone on to terrible
> things, and we must stop them.
>
> Doug
Ok Doug. I don't know why this annoys you so much. It was one argument in a long piece; yet you seem to think it spoils the whole thing.
Let me a try a short, more complete somewhat slicker Q&A style piece that includes the history as very minor part.
=======================================================================
Q) We gotta stop Saddam. He's getting nukes - and he'll use them.
A) Nope - he has no way to get uranium or plutonium. Without radioactive material there is no way to build nukes no matter what size tubes he orders. Scott Ritter, who was Senior UN Weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years, does not believe Iraq has fissile materials. The Israeli chief of staff says he's not losing any sleep over Iraq - which he would if he thought it had weapons of mass destruction.
Q) We gotta be realistic man. Saddam is dangerous. We gotta put him down, not worry about this idealistic peacenik stuff.
A)Iran, the neighbor who suffered the most from Iraq opposes any invasion. Kuwait, who Saddam actually took over for a short time, is not supporting an invasion. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan oppose an invasion. Saddam is dangerous - to his own people. The U.S., and to a less extent the UK, have been bombing the shit out of Iraq for over a decade now. Economic sanctions have prevented any rebuilding. Anyone who looks at his troops and his equipment agrees he is a lot weaker now than when our military basically walked over his in a matter of hours. He is evil; but not a threat to anyone but his own people. Whereas overthrowing him risks destabilizing Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan - which has nukes. Not a great trade if you are being tough minded and realistic.
Q) But shouldn't we overthrow Saddam to liberate his poor suffering people - especially all the women who have to wear veils.
Umm, Iraq is a brutal evil dictator. But he is a secular brutal dictator. Women in Iraq don't have to wear veils. And the problem with overthrowing Iraq for the sake of it's people (aside from those we'd kill) is that those in a position to actually step in, should we kill the old bastard, are as brutal and evil as he is. Not to mention the Bush record on nation building is pretty lousy - another reason to think we that after killing a lot of people the best result we could expect would be dictator just as bad. Anyway, what happened to tough-minded realism?
Q) Don't we need to go after him because of his links to Al 'Queda?
Ok so you are back to TMR.. Iraq and Al 'Queda are enemies. There is zero evidence of ties between them, and plenty of reason not to expect there to be any. Even the Bush administration has dropped this. And talking of Al 'Queda, shouldn't we be concentrating on tracking down Osama, instead of staring a new invasion?
Q) But isn't Saddam a madman who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people?
A) Saddam is brutal and evil - but there is no evidence of him being crazy. He used chemical warfare against Iran, and against the Kurds when they rebelled against him. We knew this when we sold them to him; so apparently he wasn't crazy at the time. His invasion of Kuwait was for money; Kuwait had oil he wanted. And either deliberately or due to a stupid mistake, we led him to believe he had our permission to invade. So this was arrogance, and perhaps stupidity - but not insanity. Our actions against him since then have led to the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands of his people, and the impoverishment and suffering of most of the rest. But they have strengthened his control. His refusal to commit suicicide or surrender or resign for the sake of his people may be selfish - but they are not signs of craziness.
Q) Why you keep bringing up old stuff?
A) Because most of your invasion arguments involve old stuff.
Q) Well you wrote them for me. Who are you?
A) Who's asking?
Q) If you're going to get all post-structuralist and self-referential, I'm not gonna talk to you anymore.
<Finis>