Whether Iraq even had WMDs is actually beside the point. They did not decide to move in on that thought alone, then we might have outright invaded Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Turkestan, Ukraine, as well as Iraq. It was a combination of things leading to a conclusion of world peace danger or threat based on actions taken by Saddam and Iraq leading upto the war. Its like parenting, what is the good of threatening punishment if you don't carry through if the bad behavior is not changed? Or like after AT & T was broken up from a monopoly in the early 1980's, would the people have benefited or the government been effecient if it let AT & T and its components recombine within a decade or less?
Iraq invaded its neighbor Iran to get its oil in the early 1980's. After millions of deaths caused by his 8 year attempt, he finally withdrew. Then a couple years later, he invaded Kuwait. Allies built up to prevent further expansion and hoped to influence Iraq to withdraw peacefully after witnessing the size of the force and number of countries against him. Neither worked. He then attacked Israel by launching missles, his third nation targeted for aggression. Shortly before all deadlines passed, Iraq invaded Saudia Arabia, number four. When would his aggression end? After Kuwait was freed and peace was agreed on, Saddam bickered about it and delayed as long as he could. When the agreements were finally made, Saddam promptly tested his limited by gassing his own citizens in rebellious territories with WMD Chemical weapons (he did have WMDs, at least at one time). Air restrictions were then enforced to protect "Iraqis" from Saddam. (Admittedly, a clear set of guidelines should have been created before peace, but that is hindsight). For the next ten years or so, Saddam and Iraq frequently acted like there never was a war, let alone a peace agreement and continously defied, ignored, lied about, deceived, or demanded from all manner of actions, stipulations with regard to the peace, weapons and weapon development, and proof of compliance. Then there was the second war. It came to this because of Saddam's series of lies, deception, and refusal to provide proof with documents, inspections, flyovers, and such. He lost the war and was lucky the alliies let him stay at all after two attempted invasions of neighbor "Muslim" nations.
Lets review:
1. A brutal dictator with a history of personally committing acts of murder and torture, lies, and deceipt.
2. Lack of cooperation or compliance with respect to proofs as in documents, U.N. inspections, and what not.
3. A history of invasions and attacks on other nations, namely neighbors and Muslim nations at that.
4. A history of using WMD weapons, even on his own people.
5. They did in fact find evidence of and small amounts of one of the forms of WMDs in Iraq, that of chemical weapons. There age maybe a matter of debate, but they were suppose to dispose of them, not bury or hide them.
The result was a real threat from a force with a history of use of it and of attacking neighbors, and in recent memory under the same government/leadership, there was not compliance with a peace agreement and years of dodging elements of said peace agreement, and there was a possibility of WMDs being developed. That was evidenced by his secrecy, treatment and deception of U.N. inspectors, material/resource shipments, possibly the oil for food scam, lack of produced documentation, inteviews with Iraqi personnel (some of which had fled, some of which were more settle (meaning with those still loyal to Saddam) and thus deception detected), and the delaying tactics practiced by Iraq Officials and Saddam.
What were the allies supposed to think? Past warnings some unheded and somthing happened, some heded and something happened just maybe less so or not enough was done, some unheded and nothing happend, some heded and nothing happened.
The threat of West Point falling to British hands so Washington had it reinforced, but it still fell. (By treason).
Japan might attack and Pearl Harbor is a likely target. (Radar, radio traffic, predictions, and even military texts the Japanese read were all clues (warned and happened)).
During the years of tension in the '60's there were many warnings or a potential nuclear war and many people rehearsed with sirens and prepared with bomb shelters. (But nothing happened)
In ancient China, Cao Cao was warned about a threat to his south if Shu asked Wu for help. No action taken. Cao Cao was lucky Wu's leader at the time, Sun Ce, died before he could march his troops. (Warning not heded, nothing happened)
A good leader though cannot depend on nothing happening, one must take precautions.
Compare:
North Korea: is threatening to develop such weapons, but they have not attacked a neighbor in over 50 years, nor do they have, at least, a recent history of using WMDs of any kind, and while negotiations are still ongoing, they are ongoing.
Iran: They maybe developing nukes too, but like North Korea, do not have a recent history of attacking or invading neighbors, or using them, or, at least directly sponsoring others (though they may be some that think otherwise and it maybe true, but I think they may do that, just not directly). Again, negotiations are going, this could not happen in Saddam's case, as he apparently did not listen anyway, and when he did, he lied or deceived his way around it. (Though there maybe some level of deception in both above cases. There is not the confluence of the circumstances as there were in the case of Iraq.)
Basic description of WMD - a weapon that kills indescriminently a large number of lives in fashion faster than natural life cycles, and generally consist of or pertain to: Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear/Atomic.
As for Afaghanistan, the government at the time, the Taliban, directly supported a force that attacked the U.S. and caused the deaths of thousands of its citizens. It would be comparable when the U.S. declared war on Italy and Japan during WWII because they were allied to Nazi Germany.
26 Nov 2004, 12:17 am
And all of this has solved nothing.
