Tweet
Coming into this war there were a series of argument about why this war was needed. The two posted over the most were : Thr liberation of Iraq, and removing the great Iraqi threat.
Right now those that backed the war feel pretty happy about themselves since they can point and say aim one was met. And it has been met, the poeple of Iraq no longer live under the dictatorship of Saddam.
But what about the second reason?
We had many, many threats about how Saddam was the new Hitler and that the UN not moving to disarm him meant the UN was like the league of Nations, unable to remove a grave danger to the world that would kill millions.
3 weeks later, Iraq used no WMD aganist anyone, and no banned weapons have yet to be found. The Iraqi military put forward what can be most nicely put as "an utterly inept" performance. No terrorist attacks have taken place, nor has the conquest of Ansar Al-Islams territory lead to any news about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, nor has anyone yet been able to show anyone from Al_qaeda did anyting in Iraq during this war.
There are plenty of people here expecting those of us who opposed this war to "eat crow" over the sucessful ending. Well, so what about the claims the pro-war side made about the great and imminent threat Iraq posed to the world? Were all these claims of utter doom to the world if Saddam was left in power true? Will those that made them and claimed the UN was appeasing the new Hitler in the run-up to war at any point admit that perhaps they were wrong in this aspect, or does a sucessful ending to the war portion of the Iraq tale exonorate you from these sorts of questions?
Right now those that backed the war feel pretty happy about themselves since they can point and say aim one was met. And it has been met, the poeple of Iraq no longer live under the dictatorship of Saddam.
But what about the second reason?
We had many, many threats about how Saddam was the new Hitler and that the UN not moving to disarm him meant the UN was like the league of Nations, unable to remove a grave danger to the world that would kill millions.
3 weeks later, Iraq used no WMD aganist anyone, and no banned weapons have yet to be found. The Iraqi military put forward what can be most nicely put as "an utterly inept" performance. No terrorist attacks have taken place, nor has the conquest of Ansar Al-Islams territory lead to any news about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, nor has anyone yet been able to show anyone from Al_qaeda did anyting in Iraq during this war.
There are plenty of people here expecting those of us who opposed this war to "eat crow" over the sucessful ending. Well, so what about the claims the pro-war side made about the great and imminent threat Iraq posed to the world? Were all these claims of utter doom to the world if Saddam was left in power true? Will those that made them and claimed the UN was appeasing the new Hitler in the run-up to war at any point admit that perhaps they were wrong in this aspect, or does a sucessful ending to the war portion of the Iraq tale exonorate you from these sorts of questions?
Comment