We absolutely and no question whatsoever ‘knew’ he had those WMD.
Except not.
This is the bizarro world, justify a war on whatever grounds necessary then push it to a sceptical world, and then change or at least obfuscate on your original reasons as post justification.
The US is supposed to be the gaurdian of truth and democracy, and it went to war on a lie, even when advised that that lie was a lie by its own intelligence agency.
Now why would Saddam Hussain cooperate when he knows that war is coming anyway ?
FWIW, I suspect Saddam destroyed as many WMD as he could, in hopes that he could stall the invasion long enough to survive. He hid the destruction to avoid losing face before the world and his people. It didn’t pay off, fortunately.
As time goes on, we will find more and more (indirect) evidence of his WMD. It will be difficult or impossible to establish when he destroyed them, which will give the lefties a chance to obfuscate, but Saddam had them, and refused to do what he promised to do in the 1991 cease-fire - destroy them, and show that he had destroyed them. So he was overthrown, and nobody will miss him.
The bickering will go on even after we produce clear proof of WMDs. The Left will deny that the evidence is real until they start looking silly for trying to deny reality. Some even after that.
Apparently he hated it so much, that instead of possibly avoiding the war and saving his ass by being helpful and proactive (which most likely would have been more irritating for the US), he choose to be stubborn and lose everything.
To be honest I don’t really care to nitpick over this any further. WMD have not been found yet, and I will assume so until proven otherwise. Perhaps he could have avoided a war, or maybe not, it’s water under the bridge now.
I think this summed it up nicely….
And if you want to ask that question by all means start the thread.
But the first question remains unanswered; did George Bush and his administration start a war based on lies? It would appear that they did, despite Shodan’s selection of a few quotes while carefully ignoring the various lies and distortions that made up the bulk of the public justification for the war. (“Chemical weapons agents?” Who DOESN’T possess chemical weapons agents? I have bleach under my sink.) Where’s the 15,000 artillery shells laden with actual chemical weapons? Under someone else’s sink? Hell, some of the lies are already admitted and documented; why is anyone even questioning the appalling level of dishonesty the Bush administration employed to start the war?
As if the documents showing WMD destruction actually existed ? I’m sure that faked up paperwork would have convinced no one. More of Saddam’s lies and delaying tactics, don’t you know. By all means return to the main thrust of the thread. This discussion of how war could have been avoided if only Saddam had bent over far enough is a total red herring.
i have a feeling we would have invaded no matter what Saddam did. The question of why Saddam didn’t cooperate fully in order to make us look more stupid and bloodlustful is probably not 100% answerable, and is on the same level of why Bush was o Gung Ho to attack and how he convinced the UK that it was justified, and if even HE knew the evidence was fake or non-existant?
It’s not my problem if I’m too subtle for you, Chief. I guess I’ll need to spell it out for you.
Suppose the U.N. wanted to inspect, say, New Hampshire for Weapons of Mass Destruction. AFAIK, New Hampshire doesn’t have any. Do you still think that the U.S. would allow these inspections to occur?
My point is that there are a thousand legitimate reasons NOT to allow foreign agents into one’s country. Issues of national security not concerning WMDs. Fear of espionage. Pride and a strong belief in sovereignty. A desire to keep other naughty, non-WMD related picadillos secret. Or just as a way to say “Fuck you” to the U.N. and the rest of the world.
You might be. I answered your question, which was:
**
Apparently, you’re content to say, “Hey, if he had nothing to hide, why did he act like he did?” I give you some possible reasons, and you retort with, “Yeah, but he could have lived had he dropped to his knees and given Bush a blowjob [figuratively speaking].” The veracity of that statement aside, I’m not so cavalier about the U.S.'s role as a bully. “Do what we say OR ELSE.” I do happen to believe in a nation’s sovereignty. Had the U.N. demanded cooperation OR ELSE… I dunno, I’d have to think about that. But when it’s only the U.S., and we’re going to ignore the will of the U.N. to punish Saddam for ignoring the will of the U.N…
Hey, casdave was right. We ARE living in Bizarro World.
The Left will look silly? Where, in bizarro-world?
Please, just produce that “clear proof” so that everyone can shut the fuck up, ok? Otherwise, it will most certainly not be the Left who will look silly (or at best painfully inept, at worst treacherously deceptive).
Seriously, Shodan’s comment is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard regarding Iraq since the mad thumping (from both sides) at the start of the war. We’ve all seen some pretty ridiculous and far-fetched ‘logic’ before, but this one takes the cake, if only for the sheer one-sided, partisan (and stupid) attempt at diversion.
I’m afraid it ain’t the leftist who are “trying to deny reality” at this point. At least not here on Earth.
