I was about to say, appletreats, that if one were going to make the case that those sanctions affected him adversely, one would first have to prove that he gave two shits about his people. I thought the opposite had been rather thoroughly (and obviously) proven.
Being overthrown sure affected Saddam.
And, what could he have gained by secretly destroying all his WMDs?
I think he had WMD programs and WMDs, although I am mystified that we haven’t found more of them by now. I predict that when the WMD facts are finally learned Bush’s harsh critics will look foolish. Time will tell.
That doesn’t respond at all to the post you quote.
Did you miss iampunha’s post of 9 minutes ago in this thread?
Just reviewed the last few posts, and it appears that you (december) are addressing a slightly different issue with your “what would he have gained” than what I referred to in my response.
So, what could he have gained? He could maintain the “whole ‘oh, hey, we can’t piss off those guys too much … we don’t have UN backing and we don’t know that they don’t have big-ass bombs and anthrax and such’ thing.” and embarass the United States if they did choose to invade.
I was unconvinced. Let me as you and iampunha straight out:
Do you actually believe Saddam secretly destroyed all his WMDs after 1998?
wring – I’m impressed with your seriousness. Yes, we did invade another nation, spend money, kill many people, put our own soldiers at risk, and lose many of them. But, we succeeded in taking down a monstrous regime that had killed millions of people, that routinely used torture, political prison, and mass murder even of children. No wonder the Iraqi people are so thrilled.
Mark Steyn says it well in this column, which he wrote after spending 2 weeks touring Iraq.
Then, there’s this amusing section:
(bolding mine…)
Didn’t you mean to say any?
We found two trailers that most experts (but not all) judged were biological weapons labs.
Now, now, rexnervous don’t go making december cite Op-Ed pieces as though they were fact in order to prove his point…
Scott Ritter said Iraq was disarmed after 1998.
The evidence so far is proving him correct.
So the answer isn’t that Saddam secretly destroyed anything. The answer, rather, is that they destroyed them when they were told to. Period. You have no proof otherwise. You can yell and shout and scream forever, but the simple fact is you have no proof.
None.
Zero.
Nada.
Rien.
Period.
Which means the war was completely unjustified. Which means that for the next few years, American soldiers will be dying in an occupation that is completely, absolutely, and utterly pointless.
In your one-tracked, tunnel-visioned view of events, sure, that’s what it means. In the real world, you are wrong.
In the real world, no WMDs have been found. No threat to the U.S. has been uncovered.
In your world, what, exactly, would be the justification for invading a country that posed no threat to the U.S.? Just curious.
Yeah, they might use it to pressure the west into giving them maps with Burkina Faso on them. 
“That’s what counts: capability, not inventory”
Precious; December has the capability of using a piece of timber to whack the life off of any unaware pedestrians; thus we must sentence him for murdering now, before anything actually happens, ´cause, you know, he could, maybe, possibly, perhaps, in some circunstances do it. :rolleyes:
Rise your hand who thinks that “what counts: capability, not inventory” is the legal aberration of the year.
Such a dastardly thing? Upper Volta?
Shocking. Positively shocking.
They’ll have to go at it for more than two decades to break our old record, set in Asia.
Nota bene!
From the linked article posted by elucidator on the previous page:
!!!
Look out France. . . .
Nice article.
pantom
“Scott Ritter said Iraq was disarmed after 1998.
The evidence so far is proving him correct.
So the answer isn’t that Saddam secretly destroyed anything. The answer, rather, is that they destroyed them when they were told to. Period. You have no proof otherwise. You can yell and shout and scream forever, but the simple fact is you have no proof.
None.
Zero.
Nada.
Rien.
Period.
Which means the war was completely unjustified. Which means that for the next few years, American soldiers will be dying in an occupation that is completely, absolutely, and utterly pointless.”
I have sat on the side and watched all the reasoned (heh) discussion going on in all these threads for some time now. This little nugget has finally prompted me to sit up and post.
sigh
So the answer isn’t that Sadaam secrectly destroyed his WMD’s?So he must destroyed them publicly? Gee, I don’t remember anything about that on the news. Could you possibly provide me with some cites which refer to those public destructions?
Please?
Go ahead…I’ll wait…
Thought so.
Which means that he:
-
never had WMD’s to begin with. This would be to laugh. There are too many people from too many sources for too many years that agreed that Sadaam both had weapons and had the capability to develop more. Plus the fact that he even USED some WMD’s against his own people makes the claim that he didn’t have WMD’s absurd.
-
destroyed them secretly and just never told anybody about it. Whatever else one may think about Sadaam, I think it is clear beyond refute that he was not stupid. He could not have remained in absolute power as long as he did otherwise. He was manifestly totally amoral and a monster of historical proportions, but the last thing he was was stupid.
Really, what we have here is a situation where it is, I think, manifestly clear that Sadaam had WMD’s at one point, but it is unclear as to whether he destroyed them or not. Nobody has PROOF one way or the other yet. The “evidence so far” seems to me to be a lot of people running around yelling that nothing has been found yet. And your assertion that “The answer, rather, is that they destroyed them when they were told to. Period.” is crazy.
And when I read about all the mass graves being discovered and all the torture chambers and all the other FACTUAL evidence of Sadaam’s incredible depravity, your further assertion that “…for the next few years, American soldiers will be dying in an occupation that is completely, absolutely, and utterly pointless.” (bolding mine) is obscene in the highest degree.
I’m posting from work, but if you look around you’ll find plenty right here on the SDMB which show that Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors right before the war. Fully.
As to the part that apparently got you in a tizzy, the name of the department Rumsfeld heads is the Department of Defense. It is supposed to defend us, not go marching off to foreign lands to replace dictators we don’t like because Bush is having a hemorrhoid attack.
So yes, it’s a pointless occupation, because as of this writing no threat to the U.S. has been uncovered. The humanitarian considerations are beside the point, as many a far more able poster than I has demonstrated. Besides which you’d have to be clairvoyant in order to be able to say that in the long term this will have worked out well for the Iraqis. Exhibit One is World War One, you know, the one that made the world safe for democracy and instead led right into WWII?
And I really don’t have to prove that Iraq destroyed the weapons. The fact that none have been found is prima facie evidence that Scott Ritter was right, and that will remain the case until something substantive is found. I don’t have to prove a negative. If that makes you apoplectic, so what? I really don’t care.