peacenik

the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

It's been about 2 months since we finished bombing the hell out of a third world country allegedly because they possessed weapons of mass destruction(subsequently abbreviated and called WMD's by the corporate media to downplay the lack there of) and the risk that they may give those weapons to others or use them against us themselves. So where are the WMD's? If they possessed them, why didn't they use them against us? Where the hell are they? Why is this being swept under the rug? Why did the whole reason behind the war all of the sudden switch to the "liberation" of Iraq, which is also bogus because many people including Iraqi women are likely to be less free in this new post war Iraq?

To all you who supported this despicable criminal act, we demand answers!

PassingFair

Not so easy to plant WMD with the whole world watching. They'll get to it.

peacenik

Well, I thought the same thing, but now it seems that the American people have been goated by the Bush administration, and his corporate media machine into believing that this war was "really" about liberation, and they have forgotten all about the lies that Colin Powell told before the U.N. security counsel. In all likelyhood, he won't even bother planting the weapons at this point, since the corporate media has pulled the wool over the American public's eyers and such a stunt would be an unnecessary risk.

Neverthless, I hope that your right and that the bastard gets caught carrying out this cover-up. I'd love to see Bush behind bars where he and all of his cronies belong! They're all murdering SOBs.

Zar

I don't think that Bush and the media have simply pulled the wool over the eyes of Americans at this point in the game. This train wreck is in plain view now. It seems to me that a long term process of moral and intellectual decay has taken deep root, and we are seeing the fruits of it now.

Americans simply are to blame for their own complicity in this criminal behavior. I think plenty of people know the unavoidable facts of this case but really can't be bothered to reflect upon them or take any responsibility for any negative consequences. Upwards of 90% of the populations of some countries are able to state their disapproval, so we can't hide behind our usual excuses of "I didn't know" or "I'm too busy." That one just doesn't fly anymore.

It seems the only explanation left is decadent moral bankruptcy.

May the next election redeem us.

echidna

Well I�ll stand up & express astonishment at this outcome. Yes, I was among those (who I think was a majority) who believed that Iraq retained WMD�s, in fact I�d even suggest that even a large proportion of the peace movement acknowledged their presence. It certainly indicates the futility of the French initiative to simply triple the number of inspectors anyway. Even an entire division of �inspectors� hasn�t been enough to date.

But one of the leading factors leaning me towards belief in their existence, was Saddam�s utter contempt for the decade of the UN inspection process. That his only concessions ever came after increasingly extreme US military pressure & without military pressure the inspection process would have been all but non-existent, but ultimately military pressure cannot be toothless. At the end of the day, if Saddam never possessed WMD�s, unfortunately he certainly did everything in his power to behave as though he did. Sure, likely it�s in the nature of such despots to universally treat foreign intervention with contempt (and possibly rightly so given the loss of their own internal security), but as such there remains an argument that for the UN to remain relevant, it cannot afford to not respond to continued contempt, and yes, that includes resolutions over Israel.

I�ve seen some suggest that the whole WMD issue was just a US smokescreen used as an excuse, however I certainly have no doubt that the US fully believed (and probably still believes) in their existence. Firstly their entire justification rested on WMD�s so their non-existence has left them with massive credibility problems for any future events. Secondly there were extreme measures taken during the war to guard against their use and thirdly the US is continuing to devote enormous resources to searching for them, something which only looks increasingly comical if they never existed in the first place.

Maybe the most tragic part of Bush�s policy here, is that only a fraction of the Iraq War expenditure would have been adequate to secure the thousands upon thousands of KNOWN WMD�s being stored in rusty, practically unguarded warehouses throughout Russia.

On the subject of liberation though, one doesn�t seem to find many Iraqis who�ll say the US never should have invaded in the first place. So a question to the anti-invasion side, should the US withdraw immediately ?

Sakpo

I agree about the complicity. I don't think it's a new thing. America has been mucking about doing evil in the world for well over a hundred years and the majority of people have been happy to turn a blind eye to it (as long as middle class American boys don't die in large numbers), so I wouldn't call it decay or claim we're just seeing the fruits of it now. I'm practically at the point of wanting to become compliant and ignore it, I feel powerless and critical thought about world affairs usually leaves me wanting to tie a rope around my neck.

Zar

echidna,

So, you're "astonished." Big whoop. I'm not impressed.

Thousands and thousands of men, women and children from all sides are dead, thousands more are maimed and burned, a nation is broken, priceless history decimated, U.S. credibility is on the rocks, terrorism is alive and well, and the powerlust of the White House is at a Zenith. Meanwhile, your main reaction seems to be a long-winded version of saying, "Whoopsie!! At least Bush meant well." And then you drag us through yet another repetition of the official spin.

I don't know about you, but this doesn't do anything to soothe my conscience -- not that it matters in the least for my conscience to be soothed. As an American, I feel I simply do not deserve any such peace of mind.

Pain Paien

Of course they have. Most Americans will believe whatever they're told to believe (or whatever they want to believe). After all why would the president lie? He's an honest man, filled to the brim with good Christian values.

Oh, an besides all that, WMD are no longer important. Now we care about the liberation of the Iraqi people, that is to say, how much we've helped them. The gratitude that Iraq so obviously feels toward us is all the confirmation the American people needs to know we've done the right thing. On the other hand, if evidence ever points to the contrary, it's always been about the weapons, and Saddam just sold them to Al Queda, which we all know he's been irrefutably linked to.

Tenek

Interesting.

Somebody build a time machine and go back 20-25 years. Then ask Americans what they think of Saddam. I wonder what they'd say.

I won't cry for Saddam's regime. But I have zero faith in the American government. Not that I had much to begin with, mind you. They may have invaded because they thought they'd have WMD's used against them. They may have invaded to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant. They may even have invaded just to get their hands on Iraqi oil.

Something tells me that none of these are correct.

echidna

Whatever the justification, history will judge the war on whether the Iraqi nation can be rebuilt into a prosperous democracy or not. My objection to the war remains that I lack faith that the US (or anyone for that matter), can manage that in the long-term.

But as likely the State Department planned, opposers of the war (presumably such as France) now need to consider whether they will stay forever focussed on the wrongness of the war, or join in attempting to rebuild Iraq & give the Iraqis every opportunity they can, however small that might be. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that the US should simply withdraw.