What is it good for?
Alright, it's early and it's spring break. My body won't let me sleep in. So, since I can't sleep I'll put forth my stance on the "war" (I'm not going to get into Bush's abuse of power and the fact that this wasn't really a war) in Iraq:
Reasons
It goes like this: Bushie is full of it. Or more accurately, the reasons that the Bush administration gave for attacking Saddam Hussein were not enough to justify the war. He gave two reasons: 1. Saddam Hussein is a mad dictator with Weapons of Mass Destruction and plans on using them on the U.S. 2. Saddam Hussein is guilty of state-sponsored terrorism against the U.S. (and its allies) and has links to Al Qaeda (the terrorist group that viciously attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. I think that's about it right? Then on with the show...
In response to #1, did Saddam really have the ability to strike at the U.S.? No, he didn't. None of the missile systems he owned had the ability to reach us or our allies (okay, well maybe Israel). Was he a bad guy? Yeah. He ruthlessly slaughtered thousands of people for his own sick reasons. But then again, we didn't go to war with the U.S.S.R. when Stalin started butchering people.
WMDs
As for the WMDs, did he have them? Well, not really. I would be willing to say that he had (at some point) a few biological and chemical weapons. But then again, we sold a lot of those to him when we were paying him to fight Iran for us. As for current risks, so what if he has a few canisters of Anthrax? We've got thousands of gallons of stuff that makes Anthrax look like a head cold. He ain't got nothing on us.
Biological & Chemical
Now, you might argue that "Well, he could transport his WMDs over here on a boat and then release them." True, he could. Now you have to start asking yourself about the risks of biological and chemical attacks. See, the problem is, you have to be really careful with BC weapons. You have to get the air dispersal just right, it can't be too humid, can't be too windy, not windy enough, can't be too sunny, too hot, too cold, etc... BC weapons are extremely touchy and only effect a fairly small area. Without the proper aerial dispersal, BC weapons cover a very small area.
But what if you just release them at ground level? Well, you'll probably kill off about 20 or so people. Look at the Japanese Subway attack years ago. Released a bunch of anthrax and they only killed 12 people. Now, if he was able to transport the BC agents over here along with a high-altitude bomber that could accurately disperse them over NYC, then he would be effective. I kind of wonder about the viability of this plan though.
Weapons from the past?
As Globe & Mail puts it, "Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction on its neighbors and on his own people, and they failed to account for the weapons and weapons programs." (from Scott McClellan, the Whitehouse spokesman). Only problem is, he used those weapons back in the late 70s and early 80s. Even if he properly stored them in a clean room, they would not be viable weapons. BC weapons have a very short shelf life.
In fact, the greatest fear I have is of someone walking into downtown Manhattan and just dropping a vial of smallpox on the ground. Smallpox is deadly, spreads very quickly, and we currently don't have enough stocks of vaccines to treat everyone. In a highly populated area like Manhattan, we would suffer appx. 100-300 immediate casualties and appx. 200-300 delayed casualties. So yeah, that would be bad, it would still be less than we lost in the war. But then again, no one said Saddam had smallpox.
Nuclear
As for Nuclear weapons, give me a break, Saddam didn't have them. We knew that for certain. We should be more worried about Iran. Saddam was at least a secular ruler in a region dominated by extremist Muslims. I figured that was a good thing.
Terrorism
On to #2, his link with Terrorism. What? Who the hell thought this one up? Okay, I'm willing to say that Saddam helped out the terrorists in some way...I dunno, maybe he gave them guns. Who knows? Does that justify spending billions of dollars and the lives of ~560 American military personnel? Hell no.
So in essence, Bush is full of it. Like I said.
Changing the story
On top of this, I saw Powell on TV the other day saying that the war was justified because of all of the good we have done for the Iraqi people. Wait. Huh? When did we do this for the Iraqi people? They never mentioned this until a few months ago. So the ends justify the means?
Reasons
It goes like this: Bushie is full of it. Or more accurately, the reasons that the Bush administration gave for attacking Saddam Hussein were not enough to justify the war. He gave two reasons: 1. Saddam Hussein is a mad dictator with Weapons of Mass Destruction and plans on using them on the U.S. 2. Saddam Hussein is guilty of state-sponsored terrorism against the U.S. (and its allies) and has links to Al Qaeda (the terrorist group that viciously attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. I think that's about it right? Then on with the show...
In response to #1, did Saddam really have the ability to strike at the U.S.? No, he didn't. None of the missile systems he owned had the ability to reach us or our allies (okay, well maybe Israel). Was he a bad guy? Yeah. He ruthlessly slaughtered thousands of people for his own sick reasons. But then again, we didn't go to war with the U.S.S.R. when Stalin started butchering people.
WMDs
As for the WMDs, did he have them? Well, not really. I would be willing to say that he had (at some point) a few biological and chemical weapons. But then again, we sold a lot of those to him when we were paying him to fight Iran for us. As for current risks, so what if he has a few canisters of Anthrax? We've got thousands of gallons of stuff that makes Anthrax look like a head cold. He ain't got nothing on us.
Biological & Chemical
Now, you might argue that "Well, he could transport his WMDs over here on a boat and then release them." True, he could. Now you have to start asking yourself about the risks of biological and chemical attacks. See, the problem is, you have to be really careful with BC weapons. You have to get the air dispersal just right, it can't be too humid, can't be too windy, not windy enough, can't be too sunny, too hot, too cold, etc... BC weapons are extremely touchy and only effect a fairly small area. Without the proper aerial dispersal, BC weapons cover a very small area.
But what if you just release them at ground level? Well, you'll probably kill off about 20 or so people. Look at the Japanese Subway attack years ago. Released a bunch of anthrax and they only killed 12 people. Now, if he was able to transport the BC agents over here along with a high-altitude bomber that could accurately disperse them over NYC, then he would be effective. I kind of wonder about the viability of this plan though.
Weapons from the past?
As Globe & Mail puts it, "Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction on its neighbors and on his own people, and they failed to account for the weapons and weapons programs." (from Scott McClellan, the Whitehouse spokesman). Only problem is, he used those weapons back in the late 70s and early 80s. Even if he properly stored them in a clean room, they would not be viable weapons. BC weapons have a very short shelf life.
In fact, the greatest fear I have is of someone walking into downtown Manhattan and just dropping a vial of smallpox on the ground. Smallpox is deadly, spreads very quickly, and we currently don't have enough stocks of vaccines to treat everyone. In a highly populated area like Manhattan, we would suffer appx. 100-300 immediate casualties and appx. 200-300 delayed casualties. So yeah, that would be bad, it would still be less than we lost in the war. But then again, no one said Saddam had smallpox.
Nuclear
As for Nuclear weapons, give me a break, Saddam didn't have them. We knew that for certain. We should be more worried about Iran. Saddam was at least a secular ruler in a region dominated by extremist Muslims. I figured that was a good thing.
Terrorism
On to #2, his link with Terrorism. What? Who the hell thought this one up? Okay, I'm willing to say that Saddam helped out the terrorists in some way...I dunno, maybe he gave them guns. Who knows? Does that justify spending billions of dollars and the lives of ~560 American military personnel? Hell no.
So in essence, Bush is full of it. Like I said.
Changing the story
On top of this, I saw Powell on TV the other day saying that the war was justified because of all of the good we have done for the Iraqi people. Wait. Huh? When did we do this for the Iraqi people? They never mentioned this until a few months ago. So the ends justify the means?
