Another Response to "Hey About those WMD's..."

Another friend has responded. All italics are from the author.

The thing about WMD's is, how come the mainstream media didn't try to understand what was meant by WMD's in the first place? Doesn't it seem strange that they kept saying WMD without specifying precisely what they meant? In context, before the war, it seemed like they were using this term to mean a motley assortment of the big scary: "nuclear, biological, chemical weapons." However, they used it to mean a big, scary, illegal, dangerous, threatening, non-conventional, who knows-what-but-can-kill-us-all weapons! They especially loved the fact that because, WMD is sort of a general term, the word "nuclear" could be included in it’s definition and still be used to apply to weapons Iraq might posses. I mean, it was common knowledge that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and the possibility that they were going to be developed anytime soon, was extremely remote. So what’s left? Chemical weapons? As the U.S. sat back and gave Iraq money, arms, and support, Iraq was using these illegal WMD’s, chemical weapons, against arch-enemy Iran. The point is, who cares? Illegal under international law? Yes. Imminent threat to the U.S.? No way. Not even close. I mean, for almost ten years Iraq used them against Iran. The war ended in a stalemate, with Iran having inflicted heavy damage on Iraq on the balance. These chemical weapons would not have even hardly mattered to a heavily equipped, well trained, well financed, modern, state of the art army of the U.S. What’s left, biological? Biological weapons development is in a suspended infancy. Biological weapons development is a very technologically challenging, very expensive way of producing a weapon that is, as of yet, highly ineffective and impractical in combat. The Soviets were by far the leaders in this area, and they pretty much ruled out ever using them, due to ineffectiveness on the battlefield. So it’s highly unlikely that Iraq had anything more than a whimsical biological weapons plan. If they did have anything - again, who cares? It wouldn’t have been a big deal anyway.

It didn’t surprise me in the least, that no WMD’s have been found. I don’t think that Iraq would think that possessing chemical weapons would help them very much in a fight against the U.S. or NATO. Not that Iraq was thinking this, but on the flip side, it would have given the U.S. or NATO a reason to fight them. But it didn’t matter, because, the U.S. used it as an excuse anyway. The nature of Saddam's totalitarian, all powerful grip on the public, would practically demand that the dictator, not appear to give in to international demands in public, i.e. we can have them if we want them.

It’s a total sham that the war supporters are now saying one of two things right now –

1. Iraq had programs for WMDs. And there’s no difference between having them, and having the actual weapons. Or

2. We were all so misled! Why were we so misled, even the Democrats were misled!!!

Isn’t it perfectly obvious? Honestly! There are no subtleties here! Pick up almost any European newspaper from the start of the war drumming up to the point where the U.S. went to war. You’ll see a very clear, systematic public campaign, designed to get the public behind a war. Every argument to the contrary was dismissed out of hand. The logic did not stand up at all. Outside the U.S. it was very easy to see what was happening. A child could understand. I hope that there doesn’t have to be an explanation about why having WMD’s and having a program to develop them are two totally different things.

There are perfectly obvious reasons for going to war with Iraq. But those reasons are not glamorous, not an easy sell and are illegal under international law – Iraq is not friendly to the U.S. and sits on top of very strategic geography and has the potential to control up to 40% of the world’s oil production. Plus, this U.S. – installed dictator is a warmonger. Simple.
cheers

[name witheld by Brian]