Here is a response to the saddam apologist n/a. Firstly I will compromise my anonymitiy somewhat, in order to shut him up and declare that YES I am a member of IC but frankly am amazed that he is!
"1) inspectors never managed to find conclusive evidence of WMDs in Iraq. To date, none has been found."
Inspectors were not there to find anything. Their role was to supervise the destrcution of Saddam's weapons. There existence was not in question. These weapons were used to massacre thousands of Kurds.
"2) Ownrship of a weapon is no justification for invasion at any rate. By the same token, Russia, France, Britain, the USA, Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan and other nations (including South Africa in the 80s) should all also be invaded and ridded of WMDs immediately."
The comparison between Dritain , the Us and Israel- free democratic nations and Iraq is obscene as it is ditorted. The ground for war may be found in the 1991 cease fire accord. Saddam's illegal invasion of Kuwait and his agreesion led to Gulf War 1. The allies agreed to a ceasefire and thus did not go all the way to Baghdad, on the condition that Saddam's fascist regime disarmed within 45 days. 12 years, 18 Chapter 7 (Binding) security Council resolutions later, he had not. In fact, as his own sons in law testified when they briefly defected to Jordan in 1998, (they later returned as Saddam promised no to harm "the fathers of his grandchildren" and were summarily executed by his troops) he sped up his weapons programme. while his people lived in poverty Saddam continue to buy weapons and build palaces...
"3) There are dozens of evil megalomaniac undemocratic regimes in the world, including GW Bush among others, who after all won the election by means of election fraud in Florida (the case: several hundred US army officers sent in faulty election votes. They were subsequently manually corrected by politicians, which means all the jokes at the stupid little old democratic ladies unable to find the right field to tick are unfounded, as hundreds of US marines also returned faulty forms. Except, theirs were corrected...)"
Right so George Bush is a maniacal dictator like Saddam? What planet are ou on. By the way the argument that other dictators are not tackled-does not negate from the fvact that it was a damn good thing to remove Saddam. Indeed it will serve as a message to other dictators eg Syria's Assad or Iran mullahs- that their fascist, opressive regimes, cannot continue to fund Islamo fascist terror, to subjugate their own people and fuel conflict. That Saddam is gone is good. That there are other evil regimes is true but doesn't contribute one dot to your anti-war/pro Saddam opinion.
Are you saying that it is a bad thing that the dictator is gone?
"4) Saddam Hussein should have been taken out in 1991. Or even earlier. He wasn't."
True.
"You cannot, and should not go back and try to correct all mistakes."
Well obviously you can as the US has just shown!
"5) The war is motivated by the wrong reasons."
I guess you are one of those idots who think it's about oil. If so they would have done it earlier-= they didn't need 12 years. In fact France- the key opponent/appeaser of attacking Saddam- were against war because they didn't want to lose their lucrative and illegal contracts with the Iraqi regime!
"The US did not capture bin Laden. The war in Afghanistan was too quick and not particularly successful"
Oh really? Al qaeda were decimated. The taliban are gone. But then you prbably think that the people who stone women to death for not wearing th Burka were just as Bad as tony blair or Bush!
"(if putting a nation into the hands of drug dealers is a success....)."The drug dealers were there before. There are less of them now. But reading the stuff you write you probably think that's a bad thing.... Korea?
"6) Not even the supporters of war among the press (eg The Economist) believe that there has ever been any link between Iraq and al Quaeda, and there is not."
The Economist a supporter of the war? no wonder you are such a fool. Why don't you try reading the Weekly standard (in the US) or the times or the Telegraph for a more sensible viewpoint.
Baghdad has long been a haven for many Arab terrorist including PFLP, Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda( CORRECTLY SPELT!)Arab terrorism is multi faceted. It is supported by many of the Arab regimes.
Saddam's Iraq held host to Al qaeda offshoot Ansar al Islam in Northern Iraq. Top Al qaeda officials were in hiding in Baghdad. Saddam, paid money to each Arab homicide bomber in Israel. Saddam's operatives met with 9 11 chief hijacker Mohammed Atta in Berlin 6 months before the attack on the twin towers. The connection between Arab/Islamo fascist terror and Saddam's Arab/Islamo fascist regime is there for all to see...
"7) The war in Iraq produces a humanitarian disaster"
The problems facing the people are due to 30 years of the Baathist regime (of which a significant number of people were complicit in their crimes) and not to 3 weeks of war. Saddam robbed his people to build palaces and buy weapons. The Americans don't need the aid agencies- they will provide for the Iraqis themselves (who gives more aid than all the other countries put together other than the US!!). Let us not forget it is the Arabs themsleves who are doing the looting. While the Americans will undoubtebly bring order to blame this on the Americans is absurd. are you saying that the dark days of Saddam's tyranny should return?
"Which suggests, all in all, that Saddam was more popular than the Americans over there...)"
Oh I guess you are. How warped!
"8) When reconstruction contracts are negotiated months before a war, on a "American companies only" basis, you start to suspect there is more to gain here than "liberation" really? what is your proof of this. The war was paid for by US lives and US money. The reconstruction- not correct here you should say the development as the US is not going to reconstruct Saddam's palaces or weapons where most of the Iraqi wealth went-will probably be subsidised by the US taxpayer too.
The US will have spent far more on the war than anything they may regain. The war was not about money- you marxist twit- it was about removing a fascist/terrorist danger.
."A certain A. Hitler tried the same in 1939."
Now you compare the allies to the Nazis how low will you stoop?
The only correct analogy would be with "peace in our time" chamberlain's appeasement policies. The pro saddam/anti-war lobbies mantra was clearly reminiscent of that. Indeed the same antisemitism- that allowed hitler to break every rule in the book and be appeased- was probably fuelling some of the anti-war spokespersons eg George Arafat Galloway- whose love for Arab dictators is only matched by his hatred of the Jews and their state !
"9) The war ignites world hatred."
Again your ignorance is clear. The Islamist/Arab hatred for the West was there before and will be there after the war. It will if anything decline as Arabs lose interst when they see they are loosing (hundred of historicla examples of this). The hatred is based on a jealousy of the accomplishments of the west that starkly contrast the backward oprressive regimes that are the entire Arab world. It is based on a view that non muslims are "dhimmi" people whose status must always be lower than that of the muslim Arabs. Read Bernanrd lewis or David pryce Jones "the Closed circle" for more insight. Although the only publiation you probably read is The Daily Mirror!
" There's pictures of Iraqi civilians fighting against US soldiers and being killed or arrested as POWs."
No these are Saddam's soldiers' who have donned civvies or terrorists!
"There's pictured of Arabs from all over the region moving into Iraq to help fight the American invasion."
These people are mercenaries at best. They are terrorists. Most have come form terror capital Syria. They are foreigners trying to impose their vile Islamism on the indigenous Iraqis. Look at your hypocrisy -on the one Hand the Allies canot go fight Saddam but these foreigners can? Why Because they are muslims?
Are Muslims beyond reproach?
Frankly these people will learn their lesson at the hands of the US marines and the world will be a better place for it!
"how many bombed out Iraqi vehicles,"
Yeah they bombed Saddam's army that's what happens in war you fool!
"tied up Iraqi POWs"
Most of the Iraqi soldioers were desperate to surrender because they knew that they would bet far better food, water and treatment than from Saddam!
" how many people are now more ready to join up with al Queada or other terrorist organizations?"
Much less. the Arab psycology dictates that it is better not to follow a loosing cause.
Terorism will not be eliminated but will definitely go down.
"10) Any government that puts people into detainment without legal consultation or access to the outside world, calling them "illegal combatants" "
The Alqaeda fighters in Afghanistan were foreing (mainly Arab) terrorists who did not wear a uniform and di not represent a country. They do not fall under the Geneva convention- possibly as psies since not in uniform- and could quite legally be simply shot.Theconditions on Guantanamo are actually very good- more than these suicide bombers deserve. They have 3 meals a day, a shower acces to their Koran and excercise.
"because they happen to be on the other side of a war,"
No because they were terrorists. The taliban fighters were in fact accorded treatment as POW's since at least they were part of a national army (even though an army that would never have come close to following the aforementioned convention!)
Email this Article