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

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Dave Hahn (dhahn at techangle.com) wrote:
> [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?

I think there are only two reasons I would support invading Iraq:  clear
and preasent danger, or to free the Iraqi people of Saddam.  The first
reason was chosen, but the case for it is very weak.  The second reason
was glossed over.  I wouldn't really have a problem with the war if I
felt that GWB had been truthful about the reasons for going.

As for the Saddam part, I don't agree that it doesn't make sense.  First
of all, most of the weapons we gave him have a very real shelf life.  In
all reality, they were probably useless.  We have not found the
infrastructure to build more, or even maintain the ones he had.  They
were probably useless to him, and could get him in a whole hell of a lot
of trouble.  So he may destroyed them.  It seems idiotic to not tell the
UN that, but he was a vain man, perhaps he didn't want to say that he
had buckled to the UN.  He insisted on saying that he won the first Gulf
War, so I wouldn't put it past him to behave this way.

I realize that is all very speculative, and we may yet still find WMD, in
which case I will be proven wrong.  But there is also the possibility
that we will find nothing of consequence, in which case we really must
consider what Hans Blix is saying.

Tim
--
======================================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silver_NO-UCE_klein.net   ==
== ------------------------------------------------ ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings...         ==
======================================================