At the start of this war, I had some very serious misgivings about the Weapons of Mass Destruction falling into the hands of terrorist reason for starting this war. I do not want to get into the debate of should we be in this war or not. I just want someone to explain how if this was originally about WMD going to war to remove the regime that controlled them was a good idea.
This is what bothers me. If Iraq had large amounts of chemical and biological weapons hidden in several locations around the country and we did not know where they were wouldn’t we by removing the regime run a greater risk of a low level technician selling or giving said weapons to terrorists due to financial or ideological reasons than you would have had from Sadam?
Perhaps. Certainly a possibility. The alternative was to leave them in the hands of Saddam (assuming he actually had any) with the belief that he intended to distribute them to enemies of the United States. So we take our chances and hope to get them before someone besides Saddam can distribute them. If you believe Saddam meant to give them away this path makes sense…one way the terrorists are guaranteed of getting them and the other they might or might not.
Yeah, but you would buy from such a low level person? They probably don’t know how the thing works & with weapons like that you need instructions … in other words, no buyer = no seller.
Well, the terrorist equivalent of ebay, probably has some form of buyer protection; something along the lines of “we’ll kill your wife and kids if you screw with us.”
This thread Iraqi nuclear site looted has a discussion of the increased risk of weapons dispersal brought about by the US’ failure to secure even some of the best known material sites.