o.k..
o.k..
i really don`t have the time or the inclination to answer every question.....to delve deeply into the minutiae and conspiracy theories....
but bottom line,i`ll try and rationalize the "why" of taking out saddam......
let me take a whack at it....
let me preface my opinion by stating that the administration could never explain their reasoning for removing saddam by using rationale like the safety and security of the middle eastern oil supply and the security of israel.....and the two are inexhorably linked....
it`s just not a politically correct enough reason to remove saddam.....given the anti-israeli sentiment pervading europe(mostly because of the large influx of muslims).....and those moronic enough to continually scream no war for oil......a very stupid sentiment....basically voiced by those that have grown soft from having everything provided to them for to long....i`m talking oil ....
therefore,it could could not be put forth in a public forum because it would be considered inflammatory......
but,let the oil supply be interrupted in this country for an extended period and watch our nation collapse....watch the world`s economy fold...
i know there are other sources of oil available...venzuela,canada etc....but,the middle east is the hub.....the heart...and it is also one of the most unstable areas in the world...a large part of that instability was linked to saddam...
....and,like israel or not,they are a democracy and our biggest ally in the region...they share our core beliefs....they are a society that basically mirrors our own....cut from the same cloth,so to speak,as far as the evolution of civilization is concerned...should we abandon them because it`s easier than standing with them against a common enemy....terror....should we be like like france ?abandon our allies because it`s expedient or profitable?....
i`m not trying to espouse a pro-israeli stance.....but,we may be the only thing standing between the muslims and the israelis and an enormous middle eastern conflagration...
.it`s a fact that israel does have nuclear weapons....they have not used them,even though gravely provoked....
saddam hussein is on record as saying,"my biggest mistake was not having nuclear weapons when going into kuwait"...if he`d had them,he`d probably still be in kuwait....and maybe some other middle eastern countries.....if you check your history,you`ll find that the iraqi`s were frantically trying to complete their french provided nuclear reactor "osirak" or "tammuz 1" in the late 80`s or early 90`s..i have pictures of a young jacques chirac standing in the facility shaking hands with saddam if anyone is interested...
..luckily the israeli`s took the reactor out before it went hot....basically saving 1000`s of iraqi lives.....the timing of the "removal" of this reactor was a master stroke by israel....causing very little loss of life and causing much less consternation in the arab world...
understand that if the israeli`s hadn`t taken out that french built iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80`s,there would have been nuclear weapons thudding into israel,not poorly guided scuds during the gulf war..around 39 of them hit israel,i think....unprovoked........while the israeli`s sat on their hands...
...and as i said,about 3 hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs would pretty much annihilate a small country like israel....
make no mistake....a big part of our decision to take saddam out,is rooted in the continued existence and safety of israel......and probably more so by the potential global catastrophe that an all out middle eastern war would cause......yes,the oil.....it`s about the oil....and that`s about as good a reason as there is in this world...
these things were seen as being jeopardized by the one dictator in the middle east crazy and ballsy enough to willingly try to offest the delicate political balance in the middle east...the one that invaded kuwait...the one that gassed his own people.....the one that tried to destroy the kuwaiti oil fields and cause economic and ecological disaster when he was driven out of kuwait..
a quick read...
Wednesday, 4 October, 2000, 13:35 GMT 14:35 UK
Saddam threatens Israel
Palestinian killings have enraged Iraqis
By Middle East correspondent Frank Gardner
""Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has said his country could destroy Israel if it was given access to land next to the Jewish state.
On Wednesday, Iraq's state controlled newspapers carried the president's threat, which he made following the recent bloody clashes between Israelis and Palestinians.
Iraqis are calling the threat one of the strongest statements by Saddam Hussein in years.
An idle boast or a serious threat to Israel? With Iraq's unpredictable leader, it is hard to tell.
The government controlled press quoted the president as saying Iraq could put an end to Zionism in a very short time if only it was given a piece of land next to Israel.
That is highly unlikely to happen, but Iraq did physically attack Israel during the Gulf War nine years ago by firing 39 Scud missiles at the Jewish state.
Iraqis say the clashes over the last few days between Israeli forces and Palestinians have enraged their president.
Angry outburst
On Tuesday he was seen on television banging his fist on the table in anger, criticising Arabs for not doing enough in response to Israeli killings in the Palestinian territories.
He said the great people of Iraq were ready to destroy Zionism right now and he called on Arabs to brandish their swords and make the sacrifices needed.
Iraq has also been calling for a holy war to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli control. President Saddam Hussein has said Iraq did not need to wait for sanctions to be lifted before striking Israel.
The United States says it closely monitors Iraq for any signs of military activity, but United Nations inspectors looking for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction have not been in the country for nearly two years now.""
saddam has wanted to lead the middle east against the infidels(us)...he called himself "the sword of nebuchadnezar"...uniting the arab world against the west...restoring the greatness of "baylon"....
the world is becoming rife with black market nuclear processing material and some say,actual nuclear weapons(the soviet union cannot account for all of their cold war weapons)....n. korea has already been caught secretly shipping missiles to terrorist nation yemen on unmarked vessels....unfortunately,the world`s hands are somewhat tied because n. korea HAS a nuclear capability....that fact changes the whole dynamic...
if saddam`s reactor hadn`t been taken out prior to the gulf war,and the u.n. still chose to extract him from kuwait,israel would most definitely have been hit with nuclear weapons.....thus,bringing retaliatory strikes with nuclear weapons from israel....thus opening the middle east up to a full scale arab vs israeli conflict,fecking up half the world`s oil supplies,and possibly creating a global catastrophe.......the guy has proven he`s willing to do what your average despot will not do.......
it`s not hard to understand the rationale for removing saddam...agree or not,there was some reason for their thinking...why they did what they did....but,it was poorly planned...the aftermath,i mean.......
the whole world thought that saddam had the weapons..he never came clean....
.the france`s and germany`s did what they did in the u.n. because it was in their own their own economic and political interests....if they had provided a united front against saddam,it`s a good chance the war would never have happened........
the france`s and germany`s are obviously trying to bolster old european influence under the cover of the toothless u.n..and were lining their pockets with lucrative oil deals from sadddam......we now find that the oil for food program meant to take the heat off iraqi sanctions was probably rife with u.n. payoffs,kickbacks and bribery...and probably benefitted saddam much more than the people of iraq.........france,russia and germany were more than a little dishonest about their less than altruistic reasons for stonewalling u.n. efforts at making saddam come clean about wmd`s.... oil deals....billions of dollars......again the oil.....
..blocked at every turn by the europeans when trying to make saddam open up for years, i guess the administration thought that if you can`t assuredly get the knife away from jack the ripper....then you have to get rid of jack....
you may not agree..hell,i`m still not sure i agree....you may be jew-haters,anti-american,anti-bush administration or just flat out anti any war..you may not want to hear this..that`s your right....
bottom line is,the administration chose to stop this show before it got to the breaking point....saddam was a monster,as are many others around the world....but he has demonstrated the instability necessary to cause a full scale middle eastern and global conflict.....
was it a good move?....history will be the judge...are cheney,rumsfeld et al members of some secret society?.....i have no idea...it sounds a bit ridiculous to me...but,i have no proof one way or the other...
i agree that everything that happened after the saddam statue fell was poorly planned and because of the administration`s lack of foresight,this thing has turned into an ungodly mess....but,i think it`s way to premature to state as fact that saddam had no wmd`s.....we may be starting to see the tip of the iceberg with this sarin gas find today....but,that`s pure conjecture....
whatever....the question that i posed my opinion on was "why invade iraq"....
it`s my opinion...it`s just an opinion...
