Posted on 08/02/2002 12:18:22 PM PDT by knighthawk
Tidings of war are never comforting. But in the case of Iraq, they are welcome nonetheless. Rolling over a nuke-building Saddam now is the only way the West can avoid confronting a nuke-wielding Saddam later. Time is of the essence: Speaking at a U.S. Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear engineer who defected to the West, said Iraq is running an advanced chemical weapons program and has enough uranium to manufacture several nuclear weapons by 2005.
The U.S. Congress has begun debating the Iraq issue, and will likely come out in favour of military action. Yet Canada and most of Europe take the view that Iraq can be defanged through peaceful means. Playing to this split, Saddam has dangled the possibility of readmitting the weapons inspection teams that left his country four years ago. But the offer is a scam. If Iraq were genuinely willing to eradicate its weapons of mass destruction, there would be nothing to negotiate: The inspectors would simply be allowed to scrutinize whatever facility they pleased -- even the so-called "presidential sites," which Saddam used to hide his illegal weapons during the 1990s.
No one should expect Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction voluntarily. He is a proven genocidal maniac on par -- in method, if not in scale -- with Joseph Stalin; and nothing will convince such a man to part with his murderous toys. Shortly after becoming President, Saddam launched a pointless war against Iran that claimed a million lives. At the end of that conflict, he gassed his country's Kurds -- turning whole villages into open-air concentration camps. A few years later, he invaded Kuwait, abducting and murdering hundreds, and setting the country's oil wells aflame out of sheer bellicose spite. Killing people is what Saddam does -- and if he had nukes, he would find ways to use them.
But opposition to an Iraqi campaign seems to originate from more than a mere misunderstanding of the Iraqi leader's immediate intentions. The West's peacenik chorus works from the premise that Saddam's corner of the Middle East can be redeemed with a few nips and tucks. Iraq has a bad leader; Saudi Arabia seems to be running a terrorist trade surplus; Iran's mullahs are overly puritanical; Syria hasn't quite warmed up to the idea of a Jewish state. These are all problems, the theory goes, that can be dealt with by drafting the right treaties and arranging the right meetings. But the hope is utterly naive: Iraq and its neighbours are not simply going through a series of defusable crises. We in Western democracies must admit to ourselves that the struggle against militant Islam and Arabism is a true war fought against an enemy that is every bit as intractably opposed to freedom as the Soviet-led front we defeated during the Cold War.
Saddam Hussein is not the only leader who will fall before this war is over. A band of repression and nihilistic anti-Western hatred runs from Riyadh to Baghdad to Damascus to Tehran, and each nation has its own Ceausescu. As the Post reported on Wednesday, Saudi Arabia is a house of cards. Ditto Iran. And Syria has been in decline since the Soviet Union withdrew its support. All of these nations will likely have new regimes within a decade; and the West has a profound interest in shaping their successors. A lengthy military campaign may be necessary to protect Western interests.
In other words, the upcoming attack on Iraq will not be a one-off gambit aimed at getting rid of a single man. It will be part of a long-delayed campaign to destroy the rot at the heart of the world's most totalitarian corner. We can argue over the best method to dislodge Saddam, and over what steps should come after. But we must agree on one thing: Appeasement and inaction are not options.
How many were Afghans?
Are you a simpleton, or what?
Now, there's a stretch for you to look at.
To: knighthawk
How many of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were Iraqis?
3 posted on 8/2/02 12:22 PM Pacific by Tropoljac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Now, maybe I'm on drugs over here or something, but you seem to be commenting on the relative innocence of the Iraqi regime in the 911 attack.
A-freakin'-men! Do you hear this Colin?
saddam represents neither islamic fundamentalism or secular iraq. with saddam you get both hitler and stalin rolled into one. like stalin, we kills his political enemies within his own borders to solidify his power and further his program. like hitler, he has taken his genocide outside of his borders to build an empire. his empire is meant to take out millions of those he despises: kurds, turks, jews, americans...
And if the US will move in against the islamic fundamentalists, most muslims will see it as a war agianst islam and there is a chance the reformists and fundamentalists will unite against the US.
And is there a reason we shouldn't help Israel?
I bet you were demanding proof that Tojo didn't "act alone" on December 7, 1941.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.