My take on Iraq

After going back and forth on the Iraq issue, I have finally come to a conclusion. It wasn't easy. There are clear reasons for taking Saddam out, but there are clear reasons for not getting involved. Read my brief takes on the pros and cons, and then feel free to come up with your own conclusions... mine is at the bottom.


Reasons for taking him out:

As a so-called civilized society, we are responsible for policing the world. We cannon permit out of control regimes to rule their citizens with torture and terror. Saddam is as cruel as any old-school fascist has ever been, and he has the blood of thousands of his own people on his hands. How many more years of this should we allow this to happen? History has taught us time and time again that if we ignore fascists, they end up causing more trouble than if we would have eliminated them. Case in point, Hitler. Case in point, Hussein in the Gulf War (why the fuck didnt we take him out?? Does anyone outside the Bush family table know this?). You can be a real cynic and say that war is good for business, and that's why it's good for the US, but the truth is that no one wants a war. This will turn quite ugly for the Bush administration if teenage kids start coming home by the boatloads in body bags. The West must get involved, and the use of force is necessary. There is no other way Saddam will be toppled. He has repeatedly ignored the UN, and there is clear evidence of a deceptive policy towards inspectors.


Let's not get involved

I hope that the majority of peace demonstrators agree that something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein. A lot of their anger comes from the perceived notion that the US is rushing into it. US military strategists, with the President's ear in full attention, realize that it cannot fight a war in the desert in the summer. If they are to invade, they must do it before probably April, otherwise running the risk of wait until September. If the US is being truthful about it's case (more on that in a minute) then there is the possible fear that if Saddam is not immediately threatened, then he may have some breathing room for his mass weapons production. In other words, if the US lets up, and he doesn't feel immediately threatened, he may use that as an opportunity to pounce on the West while they are less likely to be ready.


Anyway, I don't think that the demonstrators are inherently against taking Saddam out, they would just prefer it not be a messy affair with deaths involved. Fat chance. The timing issue aside, there is the whole oil issue. Bush has always had a soft spot in his stupid little heart for oil, and Cheney, well he loves oil. Although they do not publicly talk about it, you know it's on the agenda. Iraq has the 2nd most plentiful supply of oil buried below it's sand, second only to Saudi Arabia.


What makes me most angry is that that they actually thought they were fooling us with that war on terrorism crap. No one believes that Iraq is supporting terrorism. There are probably more Al Qaeda terror cells in NYC and London that in Iraq. Having a nice government that we get along with wouldn't do shit anyway. Look at Pakistan. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been proven, and the other half-assed reason, that they have a stockpile of chemical/nuclear weapos, has not been proven either. Hey Blix, find me a warehouse full of smallpox, and we got a deal.


The other thing that pisses me off is... let's just say that out of the goodness of our hearts we want to liberate the Iraqi people. Every now and then the US comes up with that reason. He is killing his people, they have no voice, blah blah blah. If that's our case for war, what about other naughty countries? These are some countries that currently have so called "oppressive regimes": Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India (incl. Kashmir), Indonesia (incl. East Timor and Irian Jaya), Iran, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Morocco (Incl. Western Sahara), Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Turkey. Let's not forget, like Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and on and on and on. Are we getting involved in any of those? Nope. Africa is in shambles, politically, and otherwise. We couldn't care less. The US policy is either to kiss the ass of a strategically or economically important country in that list, or completely ignore them.


So do we need a war? Not really. Should we continue to threaten Saddam with a possible bad ass attack if they do not continue to cooperate? Yes.


Maybe, just maybe all these guys in power are playing the classic "good-cop, bad-cop" roles. I would love it if our leaders were smart enough to come up with this gem.... that they artificially created this political rift between US/UK vs Germany/France. Saddam Hussein is the equivalent of an arrested guy in a dark and dimly lit room. It's smoky, and smelly There's a 60 watt bulb hanging from the ceiling, and a 2 way mirror in front of him.
"Let me at him, that fucking scumbag!" says the english speaking cop.
"Non non, mon amie, we must do zis by zee book", says the French cop.
The frenchman restrains the english speaking cop, and they storm out of the room. The nervous Iraqi is shaking, ready to spill his guts.
The two cops walk over to the vending machines, smiling at each other. The english speaking one says "How am I doing? am i convincing enough?"
The French cop answers, "Oui mon amie! You are very convincing as zee upset thug. Keep up zee good work."