The war with Iraq: a continuing question

Two questions:

Number one:
Where’s Osama bin Laden? Remember him? The guy actually behind the 9-11 strikes?

Number two:
Is anyone else as skeptical as I am of the rush to label any drum of chemicals “possible weapons of mass destruction”? We’re not looking for smoking guns. We’re looking for justifications for what we’ve done. We have the 21st century Salem Witch Trials going on, all on live TV. I have MSNBC on in the background, and they’re reporting that Saddam and his sons may be dead. Well, let’s face it: there’s a 50 percent chance they’re right. If no such chemical weapons, or nuke-u-ler weapons, or anything of the sort is found, what will it mean for the U.S.’s role in the post-conflict world?

Give me a reason why this war had to happen, and I’ll be satisfied (and saddened). But I haven’t seen anything like it yet.

This entry was posted in Free Floating Hostility, politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The war with Iraq: a continuing question

  1. Jim says:

    Take a look here and tell me if the US is justified or not…

    http://www.sundayherald.com/32893

  2. Lopey says:

    While I admit that the link provides one reason why Saddam is bad, it doesn’t address the specific reason that we used to invade in the first place: namely, weapons of mass destruction.

    We knew before the war that Saddam was a torturer and a murderer. We knew that since before 1991, but this war was positioned by Bush and the White House as "getting weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam’s hands", not because he has authorized the torture of people (or probably closer to the truth his sons authorized it).

  3. Bill says:

    My problem is that if we go after everyone with human rights issues, we’d have to take on the whole world, including most of our allies. We’d have to take out China, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Thailand, Burma, Iran, large portions of South America, pretty much all of non-arab Africa, etc. Oh, Israel too. This can’t be the reason to go to war.
    Bush said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be used to attack the United States. If that is the rationale, then to cover his ass, he’s got to find some.
    Yes, Saddam is (was) an evil dictator, that can’t be the only criteria for attacking the rest of the world. We’ve actually been friends with a number of them over the years, from Marcos to Pinochet to Stalin.

Comments are closed.