Last night I sat in my Global Issues class at Georgia State University, listening to the professor lecture about war, WMD's, etc.
A few classes ago, she was explaining the difference between nations and states. She described the Curds in Iraq as a nation since they did not have their own state and went on to play a PBS video about the Curdish nation.
The video was very graphical at times and showed entire Curdish towns in Iraq that Saddam bombed with chemical weapons. These towns were completely wiped out and thousands of people died. Dead bodies were piled, one upon another, throughout the entire town. The Curds who survived were dying because they came in contact with the chemicals. Many were blind. It was disgusting what Saddam did to these people.
Then, during last night's lecture, the professor decided to teach us about WMD's and war, and how Saddam had no WMD's. Now this is where she lost credibility with me. How can she say that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction when she just showed us a video the prior week displaying the results of mass destruction upon the Curds?
I decided to raise my hand and ask. Here is the discussion between us:
Me: Professor, you mentioned that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction in his possession, and you defined WMD's to be weapons that have the potential of wiping out entire towns, villages, and cities. Can you explain to me what, then, did Saddam use to bomb the Curdish village in the video we saw last week? Couldn't one argue that the gas bombs he used were WMD's?
Professor: I'm not saying Saddam Hussein never possessed WMD's. He just didn't have them when the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
Me: I'm sure if you asked the Curds if Saddam Hussein had WMD's available to use, they would have a different opinion than what mainstream American's believe.
So here we have it folks. This is how the typical liberal mind works. The professors argument was that, since we couldn't find any WMD's in Iraq when we invaded in 2003, we had no right to remove him from power.
Here's and anology to that: A serial killer uses a gun to kill people and ends up killing thousands of innocent people before he's finally apprehended. When the police finally catch the killer, there is hard, definite evidence that says he's the trigger man. But wait a minute! The cops, when they apprehend him, find no gun! More than likely, the killer knew the cops were hot on his trail so he ditched the gun. Oh my god, we have no right to apprehend this guys because we didn't find the gun on him when we finally caught up to him. He must be innocent! No gun, no gun. We violated our duty as police officers by apprehending this guy. We are a terrible police force! We owe the people of our city and the world an apology for our actions. Down with the police force! Bad police force!
This is how the liberal mind works. This professor actually believes that, since Saddam wasn't sitting in his hut with Mustard bombs at his side, he posed no threat to the world and shouldn't have been removed from power.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Saddam proved to us that not only does he have WMD's, he isn't afraid to use them. Don't believe me? Just ask the Curds. Until then, put a rest to NO WMD'S IN IRAQ! It's getting old.
