M1A2U2
03-09-2004, 05:08 PM
I find it almost comical how liberals are now deprecating Bush with questions like ,”where are the weapons of mass destruction?” Well these stimulating questions are very relevant except that they are being directed at the wrong person. Was it not resolution 1441 that was signed by everyone in on the UN Security Council, that said Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and must give them up or become subject to UN weapon inspectors. Was this a George Bush resolution? Was Bush the only one who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? No, he was not, it was the United Nations led by Koffi Annan.
Before this war began I don’t recall having heard anyone say that Iraq did not posses these weapons, In fact the majority of the Democratic Party felt that Saddam did have these Weapons and that he must give them up (conveniently while Bill Clinton was our president) . Now that George Bush is president and his poll numbers are high, people are saying they never existed? It seems to me that people are only doing this as an excuse to gratify their souls by telling themselves Bush is an evil man and a bad president. Similar to this is the banal argument that Bush surreptitiously went into Iraq for the sake of finishing the job where his dad left; or that Bush only wants the oil in Iraq.
I realize some of you will not change your minds about Bush and the weapons even after knowing that the UN documented their existence. If this is the case take a second and look at the evidence (even though you probably won’t). The thousands of Kurds killed by chemical gasses must have been a result of a pesticide truck accidentally spilling out toxic chemicals. The three mobile weapons factories found in Iraq were probably just made by generous Saddam himself to transport milk and food to all the people in Iraq. The artillery shells with empty chemical weapons warheads must have accidentally fallen out of the sky and landed in Iraq. Why else would Iraq have these if it has no chemical weapons?
On October 31st 1998, Iraq made the UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq. UN Security Council resolution 1205 demanded that Iraq cooperate with the Special Commission and the IAEA. Iraq dismissed this resolution, and Bill Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq. Now I would like to know, by someone who believes Iraq has no WMDs, why Saddam would kick out the inspectors. Is it because he thought the inspectors were rude people? Maybe they didn’t chew with their mouths closed or ask for the weapons by saying please. Or maybe it’s because they didn’t give Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay, the warm greetings they deserved? Why else would he make them leave?
Ok so now you say Bill Clinton scared him and he destroyed his weapons. If this is true I find it very strange why Saddam did not just show us documents citing he destroyed them. Maybe the documents are sitting in a Giant warehouse where the WMDs used to be but we have just not come across them yet. And the most obtrusive of all is that of course Saddam could not be culpable of lying. There is not chance that he could have put them underground in the vast desert of Iraq somewhere near the fifteen MIG 25s we pulled out of the sand. And I’m sure the only reason those MIGs are under the sand is a result of the massive windstorms that occurred in the first days of the war.
A recent front page article came out entitled, “No Banned Weapons Found in Iraq”. I was shocked to see this and it made The Washington Post seem like a tabloid to me. I don’t understand why such a large News Paper would lie to the public like that. I guess they forgot that all the Scud missiles found were banned by the UN. I guess it just slipped their mind when they were writing the article that all the Al-Samoud missiles Iraq had were not permitted by the UN. What about the 60 square km weapon storage rooms, or the 12 chemical and biological weapons labs. Yes, Bush must have lied to the American people because clearly Iraq did not want or ever have these so called “weapons of mass destruction”.
You could also argue they don’t exist because we haven’t found them yet. That is a very strong argument, almost as strong as saying Saddam doesn’t exist because we haven’t found him yet. That’s right, Saddam is just a fake actor created as a product of the vast right wing conspiracy. He never really existed.
The other day I heard one of our fellow anti-war Landon students say, “87 billion dollars for Iraq? What a waste of money!” I thought that was an interesting statement if you put a few things into account. Of course we all know that if Bush had decided just to leave Iraq to deal with itself he would have been smashed by Democrats. For anyone who says that we should spend less I ask you this: Do you know more than the Bush administration about the needs for Iraq and Afghanistan and how much money it will cost us to rebuild these countries? Ok you’re right we should leave them like we left Germany after World War I, stripped bare and helpless. If we do not give this money Iraq and Afghanistan will become a pot of problems just waiting to boil over and burn us again. I do, and did from the beginning, support a large role by the UN and NATO in the two countries. And even after our many differences I think it is time to remember that they are our allies and we need their help. We need their help like NATO needed our help in the Balkans. To shove off Bush’s request like I cited before is just plain perfunctory.
So I just think that some of these liberals, and conservatives, should read the facts before they start running their mouth. Many of the people who say Iraq has no weapons should just try reading Resolution 1441. It’s not long and it is too the point.
Before this war began I don’t recall having heard anyone say that Iraq did not posses these weapons, In fact the majority of the Democratic Party felt that Saddam did have these Weapons and that he must give them up (conveniently while Bill Clinton was our president) . Now that George Bush is president and his poll numbers are high, people are saying they never existed? It seems to me that people are only doing this as an excuse to gratify their souls by telling themselves Bush is an evil man and a bad president. Similar to this is the banal argument that Bush surreptitiously went into Iraq for the sake of finishing the job where his dad left; or that Bush only wants the oil in Iraq.
I realize some of you will not change your minds about Bush and the weapons even after knowing that the UN documented their existence. If this is the case take a second and look at the evidence (even though you probably won’t). The thousands of Kurds killed by chemical gasses must have been a result of a pesticide truck accidentally spilling out toxic chemicals. The three mobile weapons factories found in Iraq were probably just made by generous Saddam himself to transport milk and food to all the people in Iraq. The artillery shells with empty chemical weapons warheads must have accidentally fallen out of the sky and landed in Iraq. Why else would Iraq have these if it has no chemical weapons?
On October 31st 1998, Iraq made the UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq. UN Security Council resolution 1205 demanded that Iraq cooperate with the Special Commission and the IAEA. Iraq dismissed this resolution, and Bill Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq. Now I would like to know, by someone who believes Iraq has no WMDs, why Saddam would kick out the inspectors. Is it because he thought the inspectors were rude people? Maybe they didn’t chew with their mouths closed or ask for the weapons by saying please. Or maybe it’s because they didn’t give Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay, the warm greetings they deserved? Why else would he make them leave?
Ok so now you say Bill Clinton scared him and he destroyed his weapons. If this is true I find it very strange why Saddam did not just show us documents citing he destroyed them. Maybe the documents are sitting in a Giant warehouse where the WMDs used to be but we have just not come across them yet. And the most obtrusive of all is that of course Saddam could not be culpable of lying. There is not chance that he could have put them underground in the vast desert of Iraq somewhere near the fifteen MIG 25s we pulled out of the sand. And I’m sure the only reason those MIGs are under the sand is a result of the massive windstorms that occurred in the first days of the war.
A recent front page article came out entitled, “No Banned Weapons Found in Iraq”. I was shocked to see this and it made The Washington Post seem like a tabloid to me. I don’t understand why such a large News Paper would lie to the public like that. I guess they forgot that all the Scud missiles found were banned by the UN. I guess it just slipped their mind when they were writing the article that all the Al-Samoud missiles Iraq had were not permitted by the UN. What about the 60 square km weapon storage rooms, or the 12 chemical and biological weapons labs. Yes, Bush must have lied to the American people because clearly Iraq did not want or ever have these so called “weapons of mass destruction”.
You could also argue they don’t exist because we haven’t found them yet. That is a very strong argument, almost as strong as saying Saddam doesn’t exist because we haven’t found him yet. That’s right, Saddam is just a fake actor created as a product of the vast right wing conspiracy. He never really existed.
The other day I heard one of our fellow anti-war Landon students say, “87 billion dollars for Iraq? What a waste of money!” I thought that was an interesting statement if you put a few things into account. Of course we all know that if Bush had decided just to leave Iraq to deal with itself he would have been smashed by Democrats. For anyone who says that we should spend less I ask you this: Do you know more than the Bush administration about the needs for Iraq and Afghanistan and how much money it will cost us to rebuild these countries? Ok you’re right we should leave them like we left Germany after World War I, stripped bare and helpless. If we do not give this money Iraq and Afghanistan will become a pot of problems just waiting to boil over and burn us again. I do, and did from the beginning, support a large role by the UN and NATO in the two countries. And even after our many differences I think it is time to remember that they are our allies and we need their help. We need their help like NATO needed our help in the Balkans. To shove off Bush’s request like I cited before is just plain perfunctory.
So I just think that some of these liberals, and conservatives, should read the facts before they start running their mouth. Many of the people who say Iraq has no weapons should just try reading Resolution 1441. It’s not long and it is too the point.