Copy of a reply I made somewhere else...
Feb. 6th, 2003 09:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinblokeI stay out of politics mostly, but heres a rare bimble from me on it all...
I do agree that Saddam is a dangerous dictator with little regard for anyone but himself and his own power base. And yes, getting rid of him would be likely a good thing as long as whatever chaos and repercussions in an already extremely fragile situation in the Arab states was handled carefully by all those concerned, which I really don't see happening.
What the problem is here is that I see that the politicians driving this are repeatedly coming up with claims that are flimsy and transparent (Blair claims that Saddam has Al-Q links, on the same day as a leaked British intelligence document denies that there are any, Powel claims that it was Al-Q responsible for the cell in the UK with the ricin, which the security forces responsible totally deny, etc)
It's been presented so badly and as for political reasons rather than "lets get rid of this lunatic reasons" and a lot of the 'evidence' (some of which I'm sure has better foundation that the two quoted above) seems entirely made up/guessed or whatever.
I think liberal objections are more towards the fact that the reason Bush is doing this is to continue to ride the 9/11 bandwagon for his own political ends (with Blair jumping on board) rather than getting rid of the lunatic that is Saddam.
Frankly it's a one man show here, if you want rid of Saddam shoot the b*stard with a sniper rifle or something rather than bombing the hapless inhabitants of his already ground down country. If only it were that easy I guess...
I do agree that Saddam is a dangerous dictator with little regard for anyone but himself and his own power base. And yes, getting rid of him would be likely a good thing as long as whatever chaos and repercussions in an already extremely fragile situation in the Arab states was handled carefully by all those concerned, which I really don't see happening.
What the problem is here is that I see that the politicians driving this are repeatedly coming up with claims that are flimsy and transparent (Blair claims that Saddam has Al-Q links, on the same day as a leaked British intelligence document denies that there are any, Powel claims that it was Al-Q responsible for the cell in the UK with the ricin, which the security forces responsible totally deny, etc)
It's been presented so badly and as for political reasons rather than "lets get rid of this lunatic reasons" and a lot of the 'evidence' (some of which I'm sure has better foundation that the two quoted above) seems entirely made up/guessed or whatever.
I think liberal objections are more towards the fact that the reason Bush is doing this is to continue to ride the 9/11 bandwagon for his own political ends (with Blair jumping on board) rather than getting rid of the lunatic that is Saddam.
Frankly it's a one man show here, if you want rid of Saddam shoot the b*stard with a sniper rifle or something rather than bombing the hapless inhabitants of his already ground down country. If only it were that easy I guess...
