Still, even if you like G.W., you gotta admit that this is funny...

 via [sizemore]

I think I should just change the name of my weblog to anti-Zane.  Zane claims that the oncoming war against Iraq has no merit based on the fact there is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

I've even willing to concede that a war on Iraq may be the best thing to do. But, if it is, why isn't the evidence stronger?

Here's some proof from our friends at the CIA.

Secondly, where the fuck are they getting all this "nuclear, bilological, or chemical" shit from? These are the same guys that have been attacking Isreal for years and have never, to my knowledge, successfully used anything but conventional weapons, and most of those involve blowing one of themselves up to kill maybe a handful of people.

The above picture is a mother and child that were caught in Saddam Hussein's chemical weapon "tests" on 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis who were seen as opposition to Hussein's regime in 1988.  You can find more info here.

The basic fact is that chemical and biological weapons are not used beceause they are "too terrible even for madmen,"

Ummm...no...sorry...you are wrong, they've been used in the past, and on his own countrymen who didn't agree with him.  On a "not quite chemical warfare attack" note, let's not forget about the Kuwaiti oil fires that Hussein lit on his way out of the country.  That country is still recovering from that tactic.

For more chemical weapon examples I offer the following timeline from the U.S. Dept. of State website.

Chemical Attacks

1986 March - UN Secretary General reports Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984.

1988 February-September- Iraq military operation "Anfal" results in 50,000-100,000 deaths throughout northern Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons, mass executions and forced relocation to terrorize the area.

1988 March 16 - Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents.

1988 August 20 - The Iran-Iraq war ends in stalemate; an estimated 1 million soldiers are killed in eight years of fighting. A ceasefire comes into effect to be monitored by the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG).

And let's not forget the "democratic" election that Saddam recently won, with 100% of the popular vote.  It really does seem like a fair election, I'm sure that the Iraqi people don't want us to liberate them.  We should probably just stay at home.

If it's a good idea, then there will be good evidence and good numbers to back it up. Many nations, rather than a few, will support it. If it was a good idea, it probably would not be the most protested event in the history of the world.

Ok, let's look at NATO.  19 member countries in total.  16 in favor of military action against Hussein, 3 against (Germany, France, and Belgium).  Of those against, I believe none of them are contractually bound to offer military support in the case of NATO action, so basically they get to sound off without having to worry about their troops being at risk.  I think part of France's hesitation may have something to do with the fact that they are Iraq's largest trading partner.  But I'm just guessing.

In addition, I think it telling that no country has said that Hussein is being unjustly persecuted, merely that we should let weapons inspectors have more time.  Some people seem to think that 12 years of weapons inspections just isn't long enough, I guess.

In short, I think the evidence is out there, and the anti-war types either haven't thought about it or are choosing to ignore it.  If Hitler taught us anything, it is that appeasement does not work.  If anyone out there would like to offer counter-evidence or any sort of rebuttal, I'm very interested, but for now I stand in support of this action.