Reddit reviews The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind

sure.

(I'm used to putting together thoughtful arguments on this and getting downvotes, but I'm not thin skinned, so here goes)--(I will also provide links, most of them to places like wikipedia, a place that reddit normally treats as an authority, OR respectable sources)--(no one will care.):

(EDIT: just noticed that this was TrueReddit, I can expect better treatment here, I suppose)

There are four ways in which a governmental agency on planet earth can lose its sovereignty according to international law.

Saddam H repeatedly broke all four.

according to international law, he was not a legitimate government and intervening in the power struggle to help push Iraq into a post-Saddam era is not (again, according to international law) an imperialist policy.

Let's look at each of these four, and explore why they exist and why they are so very important (I'll provide evidence that SH broke each, although no serious person on any side of this debate questions these facts):

> 1st: attempting or enacting genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

SH had a "minister" whose title job was to accomplish the complete extermination of the largest and oldest people-group on the planet not to have a nation-state of their own.

The only reason why this minister was unsuccessful was because EVERY DAY from some point in 1991 to the final resolution of this SH issue the US enforced a "no-fly" zone, and were shot at by SH every single day.

Now, you will have to say that you think that the Kurds should have been wiped out in the name of keeping US imperialism at bay OR that the US is allowed to protect these people at risk BUT never can say that it is a legitimate interest of theirs to simply remove the guy that orders the shooters against them.

How can it be an unprovoked act of aggression on the US's part to deal with a problem that was growing and wasn't going to go away?

I wonder if the people who don't want US to intervene in the affairs of the Iraqis would have wanted to see the US allow the Kurds to be wiped out in this fashion? Some of their comments make me feel like they might have.

> 2nd: Harboring Terrorists

this

> 3rd: repeated aggression to neighboring states.

Iran

At his trial in December 2006, Saddam Hussein said he would take responsibility "with honour" for any attacks on Iran using conventional or chemical weapons during the 1980–1988 war but he took issue with charges he ordered attacks on Iraqis. source

Kuwait.

> 4th: Messing around with the non-proliferation treaty.

This doesn't mean just making weapons of mass destruction, it means being dishonest with lawful inspectors, intervening in the lawful work of inspectors, and other items.

SH lied to inspectors, buried evidence (literally had evidence buried to hide it), was found trying to develop WMD and found closer to succeeding on this front when we "invaded" his country to oppose his annexation of a legitimate neighbor of his (Kuwait), he was left in power under the express written understanding that he would submit to even stricter future inspection requirements (among other things), making his violations of these rules even more significant.

It is now a matter of public record that the SH Iraqi government built a nuclear reactor for the sole purpose of acquiring a stockpile of weapons grade plutonium.

Saddam Hussein was a racist, violent, criminal, psychopathic, anti-environmental, threat to the free world and the existence of innocent people groups. And yet, because Bush was a bit of a dick, he is defended by redditors. Why?

WMD + SH

Two words that Michael Moore has made sure you don't believe can be uttered in the same breath.

BUT:

this book was written by SH's one time chief physicist, Mahdi Obeidi. mentions:

> buried nuclear centrifuge...attempt to purchase missiles from North Korea
> > source

Environmental issues

If GWB purposefully caused the single greatest environmental disaster, when he had nothing to gain for it, but simply to spite others, I don't believe that most redditors would wait for the next election cycle to remove him, they would demand his resignation immediately. Maybe the Supreme Court could help, but ultimately: Constitution be damned, this guy has to go, he is literally destroying the planet, to hell with him.

Well, SH did do exactly that. the flames of the oil fields were visible from space. he didn't help himself at all by doing this, but simply did it to spite the forces that were fighting against him, for winning.

So:

all of this information means that, if you are against the war (and presumably not a total pacifist) you have to answer this question:

When is it justifiably in the interests of the greatest superpowers, and the free world to intervene militarily on the world stage. Apparently

• genocide
  
  
• the worst environmental disaster EVER in the history of the world purposefully enacted with nothing to gain, but just out of spite.
  
  
• repeated aggression to neighboring states
  
  
• instability in an oil-rich area (don't act like "oil" is a dirty word, its a very important one!)
  
  
• nuclear weapons in the hands of a mentally unstable (not acting in own interest--remember what he was like just before the US lead liberation--basically begging to be removed) organized crime family head.
  
  
• terrorism (not stressed in this argument, but still important enough on its own.
  
  
• spitting and ripping up any significance that the non-proliferation treaty might have
  
  
• destroying any pretense of international law.
  
  Shall I go on?
  
  Some good books to read
  
  > and you say:
  
  > > can you provide some context, as others arguing against his points have provided some compelling posts?
  
  > sure

There are some other aspects to the story though: http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471679658