[CLUE-Talk] More on the Oil and Iraq connection...

[Dave Hahn]

[snip]
> > CONCLUSION:  There never were any.
>
> Hans Blix, if I remember right, said that as the days pass, he is coming
> to this conclusion.  He feels that sometime during the 90s, Saddam
> apparently destroyed all of his weapons, but was unwilling to tell the
> inspecotrs or prove that he did.  He could have done this to perhaps
> save face, or keep the threat of WMD as a detterent.  At the very least,
> he sure as hell hid them good.

So, Saddam to whom we gave WMD, decided it was better to destroy them and
then lie about having them rather then to keep what he had?  That doesn't
make sense.  We know that he had them at some point (we gave them to him)
and that we hasn't used them (very closely monitored) and it doesn't make
sense that he would sell them (abundance of oil to sell as compared to not
so many big weapons to sell).  So, it would seem that they are still there
somewhere.  Whether or not their presence was a meaningful reason to invade
is a different ethical discussion.  Whether or not liberation of the people
or removing Saddam was a reason to invade is another discussion as well.
The comedian Eddie Izzard has an interesting take on the "free world's" look
at dictators - his reference was Hitler and WWII, but the idea fits.
Paraphrase: We let dictators kill their own people.  But, as soon as they
start invading their neighbors, well, after two or three years, we won't
stand for that any more.  We have difficulty usurping dictators solely for
the purpose of freeing their people - it doesn't seem right - it seems
empirical.  However, if there are other reasons for doing so - human rights
violations, border skirmishes, or WMD - then we charge forward.  And, this
isn't the first time.  So, the question begs to be asked, have we
accomplished any good in Iraq at all no matter the banner under which we
fought?