I find that the WMDs, and the intel that has shown that there are still WMDs in Iraq (and been borne out in discoveries), to be sufficient to take action. My issue, the whole time, is this was a UN issue first, and the action should have been theirs, not member nations. Alas, with France conducting improper business trades in violation of UN agreement, and having veto authority, such an action was not forthcoming.
Gotta agree with the first-strike line, though. It's been my primary defense when asked why I'm anti-war in this very obvious "good thing" of removing a dictator that was killing his own people. I'm glad Saddam is out of power, but I'm not happy about the means, or the position it has placed the US in from here on out.
Oh, and the argument that 'others deserve it more/better/first' is not sufficient, in my mind. Sure, North Korea is a mess, and we had a hand in that, too, but we have already shown that Korea is a "bad place" to hold a war, so action there was very unlikely to be considered. Contrarywise, the actions in Kuwait/Iraq a decade ago were so decisive, that the choice was obvious. Stupid, but obvious.
I'd disagree that Saddam had little sarin. We sold him a whole hell of a lot, and the stuff degrades slowly (even after two decades it is still a problem, as can be shown in the incineration issues involved in destroying our own older supplies), so to figure out what he has we'd have to know everywhere he'd used it, and subtract. And, as you no doubt know, he wasn't terribly forthcoming with those details. Strange, that.
Still, you did a good job in presenting your side. It's always good to see decent information come out, instead of the parroted party rhetoric!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 02:40 pm (UTC)I find that the WMDs, and the intel that has shown that there are still WMDs in Iraq (and been borne out in discoveries), to be sufficient to take action. My issue, the whole time, is this was a UN issue first, and the action should have been theirs, not member nations. Alas, with France conducting improper business trades in violation of UN agreement, and having veto authority, such an action was not forthcoming.
Gotta agree with the first-strike line, though. It's been my primary defense when asked why I'm anti-war in this very obvious "good thing" of removing a dictator that was killing his own people. I'm glad Saddam is out of power, but I'm not happy about the means, or the position it has placed the US in from here on out.
Oh, and the argument that 'others deserve it more/better/first' is not sufficient, in my mind. Sure, North Korea is a mess, and we had a hand in that, too, but we have already shown that Korea is a "bad place" to hold a war, so action there was very unlikely to be considered. Contrarywise, the actions in Kuwait/Iraq a decade ago were so decisive, that the choice was obvious. Stupid, but obvious.
I'd disagree that Saddam had little sarin. We sold him a whole hell of a lot, and the stuff degrades slowly (even after two decades it is still a problem, as can be shown in the incineration issues involved in destroying our own older supplies), so to figure out what he has we'd have to know everywhere he'd used it, and subtract. And, as you no doubt know, he wasn't terribly forthcoming with those details. Strange, that.
Still, you did a good job in presenting your side. It's always good to see decent information come out, instead of the parroted party rhetoric!