No WMD in Iraq

Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

My position on the election:

I don’t expect the president to fix all of our problems, I don’t believe anyone (maybe God) has the capability. However, I wish to be under the leadership of someone who doesn’t create more problems the deep s**t we are already in.

Oh boy, Mr. Bush just lost the biggest reason he had for going into a war supported by pretty much no one else in the world. Great timing for Duelfer to send in his report 4 weeks before the election.

You know what I really didn’t like about Bush’s debate? How he keeps accusing Kerry for not supporting the soldiers who are already there. Well, damn it, if you didn’t send them over in the first place we wouldn’t have this problem, now would we.

Blair’s excuse is that UN sanctions weren’t working for Hussein. Guess what? No reason for any of UN’s other resolutions to really have any authority now considering how U.S. decided it’s big and strong enough that it didn’t really need to follow international law.

BTW, UN charter has this as its rules on using force against another nation: The charter allows for only two conditions to use force: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). Source: The United Nations, International Law, and War in Iraq.

After years of trying to make international organizations like UN and WTO work, how does the U.S. expect others to do what these IGOs ask if it thinks it can start a war without general consent? Granted that 9/11 has already destroyed the illusion of peace that we accepted before, does this war not heighten the animosity that many foreigners already hold against the U.S.? Furthermore, what kind of signal does this send to countries like China or Korea, that actually DO have weapons of destruction and, well, don’t know what to expect from the U.S. next?

I have to confess my sentiments are not backed by serious research, and honestly, I have no desire to put together statistics of how many died or discuss how many might die if Saddam did end up developing WMD, etc. I am also very biased in taking my position even before Mr. Bush took the presidency. I’m not trying to convince anyone I’m right — if I could, I’d run for president too. SO here it is, my totally unthought-through vent on international politics.

Can’t wait for the second debate Friday and see if Bush says anything about this. I know it’s supposed to be on domestic policy and all but maybe the topic will come up, ya think?

Oh yeah, I found this quite amusing… For those who watched (or read, like me) the debate, remember how the president told Kerry “don’t forget Poland?” Well, Mr. Szmajdzinski obviously didn’t appreciate being named as a strong ally like he should, and decided to pull out Polish troops by the end of next year. FYI.


Comments

7 responses to “No WMD in Iraq”

  1. I’m a lifelong Republican, and I’ve never voted Democrat in my life, but this time around I’m throwing my lot in with Ralph Nader. Bush’s actions, against the wishes of the UN makes him an international outlaw, and by all rights he should be tried in the Hague for international war crimes for his actions. One does not unilaterally choose to enforce UN resolutions, no matter how they might be violated. Even worse than this, for those of us living in America, is Ashcroft and the Dept of Homeland Security’s assault on the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, the utter ignorance of the Geneva conventions in his treatment of those detained in Cuba and Iraq, and of course, his blithe ignorance of the sovereignty of other nations. The last time a world leader over a country of significant military prowness invaded another sovereign nation was, you guessed it, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the world reacted accordingly. The UN, however, is impotent against an outlaw America whose military budget exceeds that of the next thirty nations combined. I’ve got my own rant on the whole Iraqi situation, most of it outlined here

  2. wow. you said it better than me 🙂

  3. I was just thinking… Nixon embarrassed the nation cuz he was a thief, Clinton cuz he was an adulterer, what about Bush? Totally agree with you that the damage that Bush caused for the U.S. will be irreparable for decades. But… the thing I really have trouble understanding is, why is he still leading in the polls???

  4. a passer by Avatar
    a passer by

    why is he still leading in the polls???

    simple, pride is a bitch.

    the greater electorate of this country can not bring themselves to admit that they have been DUPED by their president and his administration, which is filled with PNAC masterminds. they rather send their sons and daughters and their hard earned tax dollars into this quagmire than face the facts. then again grasping at facts was never their strong point. they rather “stay the course” than be preceived as “flip-flopping”. they rather “believe” than comprehend. sad, isn’t it…..

    this also explains why 42% of the voting population out there still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11(down from 63% from june), ‘TIL THIS DAY!

    PNAC masterminds http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

    PNAC http://www.raytal.com/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

  5. 国庆这些天回家了没时间到你的blog来,这几天的内容丰富了许多,这篇文章没时间看完了,还得赶去上课,可怜……,see u

  6. 15天,去了成都-四姑娘山-丹巴-稻城-亚丁-香格里拉县-德钦-丽江-昆明
    回来咯~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.