Iraq v. Iran

by Aaron Wherry

In his chat with Postmedia last week, the Prime Minister was directly asked about how the justifications for war in Iraq compare to the justifications for war with Iran.

Postmedia: In 2003, you supported the invasion of Iraq based on stopping them getting weapons of mass destruction. Does the same logic apply with Iran?

Harper: In fairness, the two cases are not exactly similar — I think there was more to the case in Iraq than simply the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But that said, obviously the intelligence was flawed in that case and there was considerable debate around that at the time. I don’t think there’s much debate today among informed people about Iran’s intentions and Iran’s systematic progress toward attaining nuclear weapons.

For the sake of comparison, here is how Mr. Harper justified the invasion of Iraq in his famously plagiarized speech to the House in 2003.

Iraq’s continued defiance of the community of nations presents a challenge which must be addressed. It is inherently dangerous to allow a country, such as Iraq, to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them.

As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups will multiply, particularly given in this case the shameless association of Iraq with rogue non-state organizations.

That is the ultimate nightmare which the world must take decisive and effective steps to prevent. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to the world, including to Canada and its people.

As we learned, or should have learned, on September 11, having no malice toward these groups will not absolve the citizens of any country from the hatred they direct toward us and toward our civilization.

The principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq but it has now become apparent that objective is inseparable from the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime.




Browse

Iraq v. Iran

  1. Interesting.

    I don’t recall anyone….beyond the IAEA… opposing the idea that Saddam had nukes, certainly not our PM.

    Someone in the US govt….I think it was Condi…even talked about a ‘mushroom cloud in 15 minutes’

    They knew of course that Saddam didn’t have them, and it was just an excuse for an invasion.

    The IAEA has also said Iran doesn’t have nukes….perhaps we should pay attention this time, and not get lied to and dragged into yet another useless war.

    • I do believe a bloke named David Kelly was opposing the idea as well. Of course he ended up dead in a field near his place. Funny thing is though that he actually predicted that he would be found dead in the woods:

      “Dr David Kelly told a UK diplomat he would probably be “found dead in the woods” if the UK invaded Iraq, the Hutton inquiry has heard”

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3170593.stm 

      It was ruled a ‘Suicide” but that ruling was challenged by 13 doctors who proved that David Kelly could not have died from the small cut on his wrist or the level of pain-killers in his system.

      But pay no attention because this is obviously ‘TinFoil’ hat stuff. No way in the world would a government kill one of its own citizens to cover up the truth.

      • Yes, I hope the truth eventually comes out about him.

        It’s too late to do any good about Iraq….but people who stand up to be counted should be honoured, so this kind of thing never happens again.

        It’ll take awhile though….nuclear scientists are being killed outright in Iran.

  2. So this:
    ” I think there was more to the case in Iraq than simply the threat of weapons of mass destruction.”

    Is supposed to be contradicted by this:
    “The principal objective is the disarmament of Iraq but it has now become apparent that objective is inseparable from the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime”

    And the Wherry Snark-o-meter hits 11, with the added bonus of total imperviousness to the words in front of him. That is impressive.

    • Well, the important thing is for Wherry to toss red meat to the faithful, so Emily et al. can duly chew on it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *