glee or SimonX asked for a cite about Iraqi nuke hiding:
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
See especially the second link, the article by Khidhir Hamza. But that whole page has a decades worth of articles and analysis of Iraqi weapons programs and inspections.
Some of you don’t seem to realize how deeply dedicated Saddam and his sons were to developing WMDs and nukes.
Over the past 20 years, Saddam has shown himself to be much more violent than the governments of Iran or North Korea. That is why Iraq is first on the list.
The sanctions holding Iraq in check were falling apart due to widespread violations by Syria, Germany and Russia. And possibly France. Also, an anti-sanctions movement was growing.
Sanctions were preventing Iraq from buying and maintaining weapons on the world market. A market which included North Korea preparing to sell nukes to the highest bidder.
Once the sanctions evaporated, Saddam would only get stronger militarily.
The only other thing keeping Iraq in check was the presence of the US military overhead and on the border. With those two sons, it began to look like the regime could be in power for another 50 years.
The WMDs we know Iraq had were those mentioned in Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991. This is the resolution that set up the inspectors and the sanctions. The rules of 687 were that the sanctions and so on would be in place until Iraq gave up the WMDs and missiles and destroyed them in front of the inspectors. This is how we know that Saddam did not destroy the WMDs before the inspectors got there.
There is an argument that al-Queda and Saddam could not and would not ever cooperate due to their extremely different philosophies. I think I disproved that argument, or at least weakened it somewhat, by pointing out that the US gave armaments to the Soviet Union in WWII. So yes, glee, I think I proved something.
A number of people have pointed out there was no known connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. I do believe there is, however, a legitimate causal connection between the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq.
Simply this: The newly revealed vulnerability of the US to terrorist and to pseudo terrorist attacks, possibly using WMDs, has got to be a terrible temptation to Saddam, who is the most violent anti-American leader in the world, is perhaps the most personally violent leader in the world, and who has already tried to kill a US President.
Somebody always brings up the fact that Rumsfeld met with Saddam early in the Iran-Iraq war and agreed to help him. Rumsfeld may have sold Saddam the ingredients for making chemical weapons. Clearly, Rumsfeld and the US government have learned that this was a terrible mistake. The Iran-Iraq war killed about a million human beings.
At the time, Iraq was closely allied to the Soviet Union, and Iran had recently become very hostile to the US, to the point of invading the US embassy and taking hostages. Helping Iraq was seen as a way to wean it away from the Soviet Union and simultaneously to destabilize the government of Iran.
No, glee, the US will not invade the UK just because the UK has nukes. Blair is obviously very very different than Saddam Hussein. You must be aware of that.
Why wasn’t Saddam removed a decade ago? Three reasons: 1) Keeping the 1991 coalition together. 2) It was thought that Saddam would be deposed after losing the first Gulf War. 3) 9/11 had not yet altered US perceptions of its vulnerability.
Do I know anything about the Middle East, or Northern Ireland? Yes. And I am certain that in both cases, enemies only partly defeated continued to resist and create trouble. Just like Iraq after the first Gulf War.
On Haliburton and Bechtel: If the war in Iraq was started for personal enrichment of Bush or his backers, that would be treason and, in time of war, a death penalty crime. Admittedly, this would be very hard to prove, but it’s a terrible risk to take. If they wanted to enrich themselves, they would have attracted less attention and opposition if they had done it any other way. The Europeans and the Democrats would just love to find a hand in the cookie jar in Iraq, and the Democrats would play it like Whitewater or the Monica thing — keeping it in the headlines for years. Bush had to know this. The idea of invading Iraq for personal enrichment simply does not hold up. And if I’m wrong, we should find out soon enough!
Look, I’m not claiming the war in Iraq is guaranteed to end well. Am saying there were a lot of solid reasons for going to war against Saddam Hussein and a lot of the agument to the contrary is very weak poorly thought out. Some of the arguments against the Bush policy are quite sober and sensible, others are extremely intemperate and lack seriousness or cohesion.
The New American Century idealogies are a one-Presidency flash in the pan, this set of ideas has not won over the US or even the US conservatives. It may not have even won over President Bush.
The Bush foreign policy has become very bold and I dare say risky. I was certainly surprised to learn that the government wanted to go after Saddam Hussein right after taking down the Taliban. If the Iraqi policy succeeds it will be because some now-unknown Iraqis step forward to lead their country through a very difficult time. The outcome is not certain. A great deal is in the balance.
Only History will tell us if George W Bush turns out to be a statesman who ushered in a new era of world peace or a failure who dragged down Western Civilization.
You didn’t refute my facts. You just added some extraneous America-bashing.