Steve 'StatMan'
08-24-2005, 05:07 PM
What if we had found the WMD's that the Intelligence of our country (built over more than one admistration and aided by our allies and other countries, meaning an alleged 'lie' by one is therefore a 'a lie by all') that our leaders believed were there? Regardless of our poliitical sides and views, we (U.S. & Coaltion countries) and even the Non-Coalition countries would have been very grateful with the findings, and of course, would have key groups involved in the safe destruction of such weapons.
But even if we had the great findings - what next? Or shall I say, what else? Because even though such a discovery would clearly have justified the driving of Saddam out of power, there still would be the same groups fighting each other for the future control of the country. The U.N., while not happy with the U.S. for invading and deposing Saddam and his government, was quite adamant that we were not to just go in, topple Saddam, solve the WMD problem, but leave the country unstable without a functioning government. Doing that would clearly have made a horrible situation, much tougher that the current one, created enemies instead of 'working friends' with the New Iraqi's Goverment that emerged, and with those enemies, a vengance, even a desire for revenge, possibly with WMD materials from the black market, or hiring even more terrorists. Right?
So sadly, we had to have to use force, first 'gentle' than fierce, to prove what Saddam either had/has/or has hidden/dismantled/sent out of country. Saddam chose not to do this willingly, messing with inspectors and throwing them out, and then doing who could know what with what he had.
My point is, that because we had to go into Iraq to finally get 'an' answer, we still would have to do this current part, including help maintain civil control and help them create a new government regardless of what we actually found.
The only other choice, in a time when people were demanding to know why our governemnt didn't do enough to protect us from 9/11, was to go out and forcefully get the answers to the questions we need proof of regarding Saddam, would be to sit and wait, and wonder. Does Saddam have them like he acts, or doesn't like he says he doesn't. How lmany more years, with many peoople living on nerves (maybe not all of you, I know), would the U.S and the world have to endure? Even after a Saddam death by natural causes, would those who take over, Uday, Qusay, Hearsay...do they have them or not? Would they use them, or not?
I'd rather Saddam wouldn't prove everything to the world and make it easy on his people and much of the world's people. But he wouldn't, and didn't. I wish our soldiers and taxpayers and future taxpayers didn't have to pay to find out the answer. Even now, I still want to know where it all went, and how it was destoyed (he did have things that the inspectors handled, albeit in more of a documentary way, disposing of some but not all things found).
But would you rather go back to an Iraq with Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and the lot? Wondering? Would the vast majority people of Iraq?
But even if we had the great findings - what next? Or shall I say, what else? Because even though such a discovery would clearly have justified the driving of Saddam out of power, there still would be the same groups fighting each other for the future control of the country. The U.N., while not happy with the U.S. for invading and deposing Saddam and his government, was quite adamant that we were not to just go in, topple Saddam, solve the WMD problem, but leave the country unstable without a functioning government. Doing that would clearly have made a horrible situation, much tougher that the current one, created enemies instead of 'working friends' with the New Iraqi's Goverment that emerged, and with those enemies, a vengance, even a desire for revenge, possibly with WMD materials from the black market, or hiring even more terrorists. Right?
So sadly, we had to have to use force, first 'gentle' than fierce, to prove what Saddam either had/has/or has hidden/dismantled/sent out of country. Saddam chose not to do this willingly, messing with inspectors and throwing them out, and then doing who could know what with what he had.
My point is, that because we had to go into Iraq to finally get 'an' answer, we still would have to do this current part, including help maintain civil control and help them create a new government regardless of what we actually found.
The only other choice, in a time when people were demanding to know why our governemnt didn't do enough to protect us from 9/11, was to go out and forcefully get the answers to the questions we need proof of regarding Saddam, would be to sit and wait, and wonder. Does Saddam have them like he acts, or doesn't like he says he doesn't. How lmany more years, with many peoople living on nerves (maybe not all of you, I know), would the U.S and the world have to endure? Even after a Saddam death by natural causes, would those who take over, Uday, Qusay, Hearsay...do they have them or not? Would they use them, or not?
I'd rather Saddam wouldn't prove everything to the world and make it easy on his people and much of the world's people. But he wouldn't, and didn't. I wish our soldiers and taxpayers and future taxpayers didn't have to pay to find out the answer. Even now, I still want to know where it all went, and how it was destoyed (he did have things that the inspectors handled, albeit in more of a documentary way, disposing of some but not all things found).
But would you rather go back to an Iraq with Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and the lot? Wondering? Would the vast majority people of Iraq?