I guess I just don’t get the controversy over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

Firstly, there was a period of several months before the UK and the US went to war with Saddam when he was warned of the pending action, when he had broken UN Resolution 1440 and when WMD was on the topical hitlist of that time. Did we really EXPECT to find any, POST-conflict? I mean, were I Saddam, the first thing I would do is to either a) destroy the WMD, or b) export the WMD!

And secondly, even if there were no WMD in the first place (although why Saddam would be so dodgy about the issue and about weapons inspectors if that were the case I have no idea), we were acting on the best intelligence available at the time - whether that intelligence were right or not, the governments of the West already HAD authority enough to resort to military strike. Given the history in the situation, the burden of proof was on Saddam to co-operate and SHOW he had no WMD. This he did not do - giving the coaltion no choice but to go in and do what previous administrations had failed to do.

I mean its a simple matter of defense, folks. Are there many unanswered questions, such as why not North Korea? Sure. What about Osama bin Laden? Well, we’re still looking for him, aren’t we? But the point is this - there was a direct threat to international peace by this dictator who had a proven track record in the field of carnage. Iraq was one. There are others. But lets not pull Tony Blair, George W Bush and others through the mud for acting on the best advice they had and liberating a country, WMD or not, from a reign of terror and death.

————–
John Wright

johnwright@softhome.net