actually I think he had a better shot sts at Bush not invading than the relative certainty that Iran/syria/turkey etc. would once they knew that there were no WoMD. Let’s not forget that there was considerable pressure, both at home and abroad for the US to not attack.
So, the only thing holding back Syria and Iran was the threat of WMD? Of course, all of the intelligencia on this board told us over and over again that it was OBVIOUS that Iraq had no such weapons. It was OBVIOUS that Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Oh, except for Syria and Iran, they’re just a bunch of goobers who believed the laughably stupid reports of Iraq’s WMD.
Do you have an cites for the assertion that Iraq was under immediate threat from Syria and Iran? Although it’s conventional forces were greatly reduced by the first Gulf War, they were still pretty formidable.
well, Iran, Syria et all have not posted plans to attack Iraq to the best of my knowledge. Howeve, the fact that there’s a long standing history of bad blood in the area is well known.
So, were they gonna attack on Thursday? Unknown, unknowable.
However, it wasn’t really all that certain that the US was, either (as I noted, there was considerable pressure both at home and abroad. Hell, I was surprised that they attacked when they did)
My point is that all of these other countries were in the area, close by, a real threat to Iraq. The US was amassing troops, yes, but it was not a foregone conclusion that they would attack, or when.
SH had two major problems - problem w/neighbors was being dealt w/by the possible threat of WoMD. However the ‘possible threat of WoMD’ was causing his problems w/the US.
I’m guessing he felt that the neighbors were more of a threat than the US.
I’m thinking the true threat to the regime that the WMD were aimed at was internal. As long as the Kurds and Shia thought that rebelling meant breathing chlorine they’d be less likely to try it.
You are (to plagiarise elucidator, who in turn plagiarised Monty Python) pulling this stuff out of your Nixon.
It doesn’t make a goddamned bit of difference what reason SH had for not cooperating. There are literally dozens of plausible explanations:
- He thought the UN inspectors were spies
- He had WMDs or planned to make some
- He didn’t want the other ugly things about his regime found out
- He wanted Iraq to appear stronger than it was
- He didn’t want internal opponents to think he was weak
Etc. etc. You could go on for hours.
The point is this: the fact that he didn’t cooperate is proof of nothing and does not explain why the U.S. lied. Where’s the secret evidence George W. Bush told us all about? Bush said, very clearly, that Iraq had TONS of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons. He didn’t say “We’re invading just because they’re acting suspicious.” He said they were invading because they KNEW, for a fact, that Iraq had a very, very large supply of chemical weapons and was a real threat to use them, and that Iraq was actively building nuclear weapons and wasn’t far from having working bombs.
Well, where are the chemical weapons? Where is the evidence Bush claimed to have? Why is it that the evidence we do know about has turned out to be lies? Why isn’t the U.S. armed forces putting more effort into finding them if they were so dangerous? And while we’re on the subject, where’s all the evidence Iraq was tied into 9/11?
Isn’t it obvious? It was pure lying. Iraq did not have any serious nuclear weapons program. They either had no chemical/biological weapons, or they had a measly few at most. They were apparently not planning to use them, if they did have any. The entire casus belli that Bush et al. sold to the American people and the world - that Iraq had an arsenal of WMDs and was ready to use them - was completely false.
You’re right Desmo, nobody on this board ever said that the evidence of WMD was insufficient, I made it ALL up. It’s also untrue that people have been calling Bush rather unflattering names for believing and stating the evidence was sufficient.
Everybody agrees that the evidence of WMD was credible, since, by your own statements here, Saddam was pretending to have them, and his neighbors, Iran and Syria, believed he had them. Isn’t that right?
I have little doubt that inspectors have uncovered books of matches, and even personal lighters. Such incendiary devices have been used in the past to start churches burning. Voila! Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Of course, now all those lily-livered liberals will start splitting hairs and arguing the semantics of the term.
To us rational folks though, the existence of WMD now seems clear.
You really are a fucking idiot, Cheesesteak. How else could I put it?
Which way do you want it? Your first statement, which I claimed that you pulled from your Nixon, seems to be contradicted by your second statement. That must have come from your froot-loop.
The second statement was sarcasm.
Desmostylus, wring
As the war debate progressed I saw numerous anti-war folks agree that Saddam most likely (almost positively?) had WMD. The position of the anti-war folks at that time was that even though WMD existed (or so it was generally thought at the time) it still wasn’t enough justification to start a war. The question of whether he had them seemed pretty well answered by both sides in the affirmative at the time.
I think it has been a surprise to most that WMD haven’t been found yet. I’m not quite ready to categorically state that Saddam didn’t have them. It’s a large country. There’s lots of sand. I think the books still open.
My opinions on the war have seesawed back and forth based on the latest and greatest info and analysis regarding the war and it’s possible effects. That hasn’t changed.
Regardless I’ve been very disappointed in the performance of the administration WRT to Iraq.
If theres bad blood between Iraq and Syria, why do I keep hearing all this BS about the WMD was moved there, and they are harboring the old Iraqi regime? We setting them up for the kill?
The other odd thing that strikes me is that Saddam seems like the kind of guy that would have cut bait and taken exile. I guess he’s an all or nothing type person.
Huh? Did I miss a memo? Sure, the anti-war crowd (like the pro-war crowd) are hardly a homogenous group, and some may likely have believed that WMD’s were indeed to be found in Iraq. But where do you get the idea that this notion was “pretty well answered by both sides in the affirmative at the time”? And at what time was this, exactly?
Well, I’ll answer the first by reiterating my sentence with additional emphasis on one of the words: “The question of whether he had them seemed pretty well answered by both sides in the affirmative at the time.”
Many of the vocal posters who were of the anti-war bent (I don’t know if it was a majority) gave me the impression that they conceded that Saddam had’em. It seemed that way to me. That is all. As for the time frame I’d roughly say it was around a month preceding the start of the war. I’ll see if I can dig up some of the instances I recall reading.
Grim
All right, fair enough - you DID say “seemed”. Damn semantics. 
Just speaking for myself, but before the war started I believed that Saddam Hussein had some WMDs – not enough to threaten more than a small crowd with, though, and certainly not enough to justify a war over.
And, oddly enough, I still expect that stuff to be found eventually; probably sitting in a pickle jar in a cupboard somewhere. Amd I’m sure that, when this day comes and that meager cache is found, the Bushistas will predictably trumpet how we’ve found tons of anthrax/vx/sarin/chrloine/whatever, enough to slaugher ten million people, and how us Americans should show our gratitude by re-electing GeeDubyaBush in 2004… :rolleyes:
I see four possiblities here: [ul][]SH never had WMD.[]SH had WMD but destoryed them or moved them out of Iraq.[]SH had WMD and they are still in Iraq but haven’t been found yet.[]SH had WMD but looters got to them first.[/ul]
If they were destroyed, wouldn’t there be some debris or some type of evidence that something was destroyed? Send a forensics team over there for fucks sake. Are we to believe that he destroyed his WMD days before the war, and there isn’t a single motherfucking footprint left behind?
Wouldn’t that be possible if he simply disassembled the WMDs and dropped them down an abandoned oil well?