Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why are we in Iraq?

I just started reading a fascinating book on the War in Iraq. It reminds us of why we are in this war to begin with:
Saddam Hussein had made clear over decades that the death of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis was of no consequence to him. The death of millions of
Iranians was to be desired. What would inhibit him from killing millions of
Americans or Europeans as will if and when he had the means? Nothing in his
record.

The inspectors could not account for about 6,000 chemical aerial bombs or for at least seven Iraqi-made missiles and two Russian-made SCUD missiles. They doubted Iraq’s claim to have destroyed twenty-five missiles warheads filled with bioweapons and could not account for fifty conventional missiles warheats.

They reported that Iraq had not accounted for the materials to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax and 1.5 tons of VX gas. They reminded us that a warhead filled with just 140 liters of VX could kill 1 million people.

The sanctions enriched Saddam’s ruling class, which deliberately impoverished the common people while blaming the international community. Saddam build more and more sumptuous and extravagant palaces for himself and his sons Uday and Qusay…

The regime gouged out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents. It fed people into huge shredders, feet first to prolong the agony, or into vats of acid. It forced prisoners to watch their wives, daughters, and sisters being repeatedly raped by guards or having white hot rods jammed into them (Shawcross, William. Allies. New York : Public Affairs, 2005. 19, 32-35).
And the anti-war Left extremists basically say, in effect, “Screw em. It’s their problem not ours.”

2 comments:

Steve said...

If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was such a bad man, why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe.

It must be so sad to be you, clinging so desperately to a lie, clutching at straws to justify a terrible policy that killed so many people, unable to admit that you made a mistake.

Dennis said...

Steve, what "lie" am I clutching to? Did you even read the post?

There are all kinds of horrible atrocities going on in the world and I wish the U.S. could do more to stop them. For example, I wish we would have intervened during the atrocities in Rwanda, and I have long thougth we should intervene Darfur.

Even though I didn't unerstand why America had to be involved in the Balkins, I reluctantly supported President Clinton when he sent our troops there--even though, as far as I can tell, the Balkins posed absolutely no threat to U.S. national security whatsoever.

Funny, I don't recal hearing the huge anti-war cry against President Clinton when he bombed the Balkins or Iraq. Clinton swore that we would be out of the Balkins in one year (which didn't happen) and no one said "Clinton lied, people died."

Anyway, I guess we can't do it all and have to pick our battles wisely. Iraq was not only committing atrocites, they had long been in violation of international law and were continually thwarting, and sometimes refusing to allow the U.N to inspect for chemical weapons of mass destruction (which we knew they had in the first Gulf war).

That was probably a consideration that placed Iraq a bit higher on the priority list than some other counties--though I know you folks on the Left apparently think we should have just taken Saddam's word for it--which is one reason it scares the daylights out of me to have a Democrat in the White House!