This story is quite old, but I’d never heard it, so I figure many of you have not. In August of 2003 US forces found Iraq’s Air Force buried in the desert. We’re talking a real jet fighter, buried in the sand.

Naturally this leads to a question of whether or not WMDs could be buried in Iraq, but we have no way of knowing. What I think this example does though is show the reality of Iraq, something that few Americans grasp. People watch their TV and read their newspapers, and it all seems so easy. There is no human element to even concern themselves with. If WMDs were there, they should have been found. Nevermind that they could be buried like these jets, or flown to Syria. Nevermind that Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, and many others said prior to the war that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (here and here). Their TV news and newspaper haven’t had a picture of a barrel with "WMD" on the side, and that’s all that matters. People are so quick to forget the names mentioned above and label the President a liar.

I found an exceptional Op-Ed piece at a very unlikely location: the LA Times. The writer, Jonah Goldberg, says "The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn’t a mark against Bush’s decision. If you’re a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you’re within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who’s shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn’t loaded, that’s not the cop’s fault." Excellent analogy showing that the burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein, not the President. Read the whole thing, not too long but very enlightening.

Are your beliefs about the war in Iraq based on facts or rhetoric? Determination or emotion? Strength or pacifism? Body counts or lives liberated? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

"It is, after all, Muslims who are overwhelmingly at the receiving end of Western violence." – Of course, gotta watch out for those US and Israeli suicide bombers. I’m sure people will point at the Iraq war, but the burden of proof was on Saddam, not us. Also, don’t forget the money he paid suicide bombers.

"…the controversy reveals a dangerous and virulent anti-Muslim racism that will almost certainly return to haunt us." – If by haunt us you mean "Muslims are going to continue suicide bombing," then you are correct.

"The debate on the cartoons tells us less about fanatic Muslims than about how Europe is choosing to deal with its ‘Muslim question.’" – Europe prints a cartoon, Muslims burn down embassies. Which tells you more?

"The hysterical tone of some free speech defenders comparing official apologies for the cartoons to a dangerous form of appeasement thus betrays a fantastic sense of delusion." – When people respond to something they don’t like with violence and demand an apology, I think the granting of that apology would in fact constitute appeasement. What the heck a "fantastic sense of delusion" is I have no idea.

You can read the article for yourself, but it amazes me how easily he brushes aside the violent acts being commited by Muslims both now in response to the cartoons, and also in the last 5-10 years.

Recently we passed the 1000 deaths milestone in Iraq, and for some reason that number moving from three digits to four makes a huge deal. Check out this post from Weekend Pundit for some good perspective.

Mathematics and the Quagmire