April 24, 2003

A Look Back


Copyright Joe Forkan. All rights reserved.


I wrote this in January. Don't know why I never published it. A small local paper had asked if I could write something short about all the Hans Blix trips and the threat of war in Iraq and I quickly wrote this at work, then e-mail it to my home address so I could edit it and forward it to them. But I never did. As I was cleaning my "In Box" today, I almost deleted it but read it again and liked it. So, before it goes to the big digital garbage dump somewhere in this universe, here it is... (continued)


- You have weapons we don't think you should have.
- We don't, may had at one point but don't.
- Yes you do and we know it too.
- No, we don't.
- You are lying, you still do.
- We have none.
- Well, unless you tell us where they are, we are attacking you.
- We can't tell you where something we don't have is.
- Nonsense, we are sending troops to near your borders.
- If you know we have them, why don't you publish the details?
- We can't do that, but why don't you just admit the details instead?
- Have nothing to admit.
- You do and we know it.
- Okay, come search for them.
- We must have access to anywhere we want.
- Fine, you won't find anything.
(reluctantly searching.)
- You know we will find them.
- Don't think so, but go ahead and look.
- We'll bring more sophisticated tools that will find anything.
- Okay, bring them. You won't find something that isn't there.
- Don't push us or we'll search even more strongly.
- Please do.
- Why don't you give us a report on everything you used to have?
- Okay, here it is.
(reading every page while still searching too)
- But this doesn't include anything you currently have.
- Because we don't currently have anything.
- We know you do.
- Prove it.
- We even have intelligence coming from the CIA to verify it.
- Why don't you bring the CIA with you then, they can also look.
- No need. you'll come clean, or face a war.
- There's nothing we can add to what we've already told you.
- But you won't tell us where they are.
- We have nothing. Search for yourself.
(getting tired of searching and not finding anything)
- C'mon, just tell us.
- Nothing to tell, we have none.
- Yes you do, we'll find them and then you face misery.
- Fine, keep looking.
- Are you saying we won't find anything?
- Yes! There's nothing to find!
- You have them.
- We don't.
(searching still)
- (announcing to the world) We have found nothing!
- We told you, there's nothing to find.
- Well, this just proves that you have weapons you should not!
- Huh? Did you find anything?
- Nope, no smoking guns. But we know you have them.
- We don't.
- (angry) TELL US WHERE THEY ARE OR FACE WAR!
- ..
- You have weapons you should not have.
- We don't.
- ...
- Economy is in crisis. Unemployment is up. Corporate corruption is rampant. Environment is in serious danger. Widespread violations of basic Human Rights are everywhere. We have some serious issues we need to deal with, but most importantly; you have weapons you should not have.
- No we don't.
- ..

- Let's tackle our most urgent challenge: send more troops overseas.

Posted by Pedram at April 24, 2003 12:37 AM
Comments

Hej dear!
Im comming here more often ;) im begining to love ur site :p

Dooroogh ke aids nis :D ma ham migimesh:p

Posted by: MontagheD at April 24, 2003 11:39 AM

...the only hole in your otherwise correct piece is that Iraq didn't show proof that the weapons were destroyed. The whole Bush Administration argument would have been popped if only Iraq had demonstrated that said weapons would have been destroyed. But they didn't even try to pretend they could prove that; they strung the Administration along instead and looked guilty as heck the entire time.

Of course, Bush would have invaded anyway over "terrorism". But I would rather have Bush honestly invading to get rid of someone he found threatening than have him invading over WMD's he's not really sure exist.

Posted by: Allen at April 24, 2003 07:33 PM

the "Made in America" cxartoon is disappointing since it is, what's the word, a lie.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has printed detailed, specific evidence on "Who armed Iraq" and the jolly Russians, French and Germans all outstrip America;'s contributions by many miles.

Posted by: Bruce at April 25, 2003 12:46 PM

the "Made in America" cxartoon is disappointing since it is, what's the word, a lie.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has printed detailed, specific evidence on "Who armed Iraq" and the jolly Russians, French and Germans all outstrip America;'s contributions by many miles.

Posted by: Bruce at April 25, 2003 12:46 PM

I dont think the Iraqi conversant was quite as cooperative as its counterpart in your fictional dialogue.

Posted by: malory at April 25, 2003 02:43 PM

Hmm. In the cartoon there, Saddam's holding an (implicitly American) M-16 assault rifle. Funny, but it seems the Iraqi infantry (& other irregular forces) were mostly armed with AK-47, and RPG's -- weapons made by the Soviets in the past & Russia today, but never made in the U.S. Their tanks were T-65's & T-72's -- made in Russia. Their air-to-surface missile systems, France. Their air force, primarily Russian-made helicopters, and French. Their chemicals, German & whatever nuclear capacity they possessed after Osirik, French. . .you get the picture.

Nice try, though.

Posted by: Whackadoodle at April 25, 2003 08:16 PM

I'll let the Iranian soldiers still in hospital from Saddam's chemical attacks know that U.S. had nothing to do with him being armed with those weapons. They also never vetoed the French resolution at UN to condemn the use of Chemical weapons by Iraq. Oh, and Rumsfeld never met Saddam in the midst of heaviest chemical attacks on Iran to "strenghten the relationship" between the two government. I'm sure they'll believe me, you sure have.

Posted by: Pedram M. at April 25, 2003 11:02 PM

Yah well, turning a blind eye towards, or even approving of, is not the same thing as making. The reason Carter, et al approved of Iraq attacking Iran was Iran taking our diplomats hostage. Should we have come down on Iraq for using chemical weapons? yes, but that does not meant we "made" Saddam. I think he was a typical mid-eastern despot, armed by Russia and supported by Europe.

Posted by: Arjuna at April 27, 2003 12:00 PM

Pedram e aziz

I gave a link to this article from my site.

Mehrdad

Posted by: Mehrdad at April 27, 2003 01:44 PM

To Arjona,
I don't think it was just a matter of "turning blind eye towards or just approving", however, even if it was, that by itself is criminal at least towards those who claim to be the centre of modern civilization.
And you say:" Should we have come down on Iraq for using chemical weapons? yes...". Well, you didn't. Now my question: Should we forget what US and US-backed Saddam did to our country? NO.
Hand shaking of Rumsfeld with Saddam was exactly when Saddam was heavily using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. Yes, he was there to also pursue the issue of a pipe-line from Aghabe port. For Rumsfeld and his type, morality does not exist, only thing they can see is where the money is. I consider it a shame for humanity that people such as Rumsfeld and Cheney are in power.

Posted by: R at April 28, 2003 04:14 PM

Bruce - Your are quite right about who bares the greatest responsibility for arming Sadaam. Unfortunately, truth, logic, reason and a quarter might get you a cup of coffee, but not much more. There's a number of lies attached to US intentions in Iraq, and you'll find them all on blogs like this.

Posted by: milwauken at April 30, 2003 02:19 PM