posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:45 PM
About what distruction weapons they are looking for?
Nowadays the discussions in both US and UK changed from discussions about the accuracy of the intellegince information- which some people think that
it may had been inflated- into discussions about the legitimacy and non legitimacy of the war against Saddam’s regime, knowing that he invaded two
countries “Iran and Kuwait” and launched a war against his people using all kinds of weapons which caused hundreds of thousands of civilian
It is noteworthy to mention that Hitler did not have mass distruction weapons when he occupied most of European countries and other countries in Asia
and Africa, and before that Napoleon Bonapert occupied half of Europe by using just primitive artillery that were launched from its facing mouths.
This leads us to conclude that the problem is not what kind of weapons the person has but the nature and the level of his thinking are. Most of simple
weapons including kitchen knife may become mass killing weapon when it is owned by hands of killing maniac person like Saddam.
Secondly, from the definition of a mass destruction weapon, which is a “weapon that causes the largest number of casualties without distinguishing six
or age and causes the biggest destruction in possessions” we shall find that this definition is applicable to Saddam himself. So, is there anyone who
needs justification for destroying the most dangerous mass destruction weapon?
This doesn’t mean that Saddam didn’t have mass destruction weapons or didn’t try to possess it, but that rather means that Saddam violated other UN
resolutions which were not shed lights upon because of the feeling of the world of the huge disaster that they might face if Saddam got mass
destruction weapons with his willingness of using it even against his people.
One of these resolutions is 688 resolution which stipulates in one of its provisions wiping out injustice off the Iraqi people which didn’t happen.
What happened rather was the opposite thing and many of collective cemeteries belong to the date after this resolution had been adopted, and the
amount of destruction that Saddam caused includes damage to the Iraqi under constructure, Iraqi environment and many innocent civilian Iraqis, in
addition to his wars victims who exceed many times the Hiroshima bomb type which proves that there is no weapon more distructive than Saddam
I expect that Mr President Bush and Mr Prime Minister Tony Blair are exposed to criticism because of delaying the war against Al-Ba’ath and Saddam’s
regime in Iraq because of their responsibility for keeping security in the world which comes from US and UK memberships in the security council,
whereas I am surprised that criticism turned into the opposite direction as if the intention of these criticisms is to come up to the disgraceful
conclusion which says that everything that Saddam did against his people and the peoples of the region countries means nothing to the peoples of US
and UK as long as the victims are Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis. So if the aim of these discussions is to come up to this conclusion, I think it would be
rather to discuss the legitimacy and non legitimacy of US and UK memberships in the security council and not to discuss the legitimacy of the war
against the mass killing regime but rather the mass destruction weapon “Saddam Hussein.”