Monday, September 29, 2003

There are lots of maybes in there, Mr. Safire.

Yeah, there's still a chance that WMD may be found. Just because we haven't located them yet doesn't mean they aren't there, but just because we haven't located them yet doesn't mean they are. Keep in mind that even I am surprised as hell that we haven't found anything. Despite having been against the war, I thought Saddam had some shit - I just wasn't convinced that he would try to use his weapons, or if he tried, I didn't think he'd be very successful.

Is Saddam the bloodiest tyrant in the past generation? Safire could be right, but it seems like there have been a few other assholes running around in the last 20 years or so that could lay claim to the title.

Safire brings to light the fact that, yeah, the media does just report on all of the bad shit going on over there, and doesn't show any of the positive advances. However, regardless of what good we may be doing, that doesn't just make all the bad go away, and it doesn't wash away the $87 billion first installment for reconstruction (on top of what we've paid already in tems of life, money, and resources), with no clue as to how much more will be necessary in the future.

We should be "secretly hoping our coalition sticks around to make the country governable"? Well, that's up to us, since we are the "coalition."

Again, despite having been against going in, I agree that we can't just leave. Now that we're there, we have to stick it out. But is there some better way besides $87 billion? And do we really have the balls to see this through? Keep in mind Afghanistan, which we were supposed to be rebuilding not too long ago. Yeah, we're still there, but we're spending $1 billion a year on Afghanistan right now, and $1 billion a week in Iraq. From what I understand, Afghanistan is still quite a mess - Kabul is improved, but that seems to be about it. Of course, Afghanistan doesn't have the world's second largest oil reserves.

While we're on the subject, I'm sure there are some people out there screaming "It's not about oil! We're not there to take their oil!" Yeah, no shit we're not going to take it, but just about everything we do in the Middle East is in some way or other related to oil (hell, maybe everything we do is oil related). We couldn't just take full control of the oil fields and their profits, because that would look bad. But don't think we won't profit in one way or another by having a heavy influence over the flow of oil in Iraq.

If nothing else, can we quit trying to push this as a war of necessity, and that "the world is safer today"? There's really no way to prove that we're safer, especially with the spike in terrorism that we're seeing inside Iraq. How is that a victory in the war on terror? Keep in mind that Iraq being a hotbed of terrorism is probably just the beginning - just wait until we start seeing the repercussions outside of Iraq's borders.

No, this was a war of choice. A war of choice designed to meet the aims of PNAC, who long before September 11th decided that Saddam needed to be removed. Now that many of the signers of that letter to Bill Jeff are in power, they have done just that. Even if WMDs are unearthed, I don't think they're going to be anywhere near as numerous as we were told. Saddam did not have the capabilities Bush and his gang used to sell this war.

Like always, what's done is done. We need to move forward, while not forgetting about the people we've pledged to help. Furthermore, we need to take some real steps to enlist the help of our allies in reconstruction. With the animosity Bush has built up, though, I'm not convinced that's possible while Bush is still in office. We need to get our shit together, otherwise Iraq may degenerate into something even worse than what it was during the days of Saddam.

Taking action in Iraq was not necessary to ensure our security before the war, but it is now.

No comments: