6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Osweld


Saddam hasn't used chemical weapons since the US stopped supporting him.

Didn't Saddam Insane use chemical weapons on the Kurds in the early 1990s?? Hadn't we stopped supporting him by that time??

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Illyrien
Since we havent found Saddam, how can we prove that he really exists?

I think Cheney went to meet him in person is good enough evidence.

OTOH, no such thing can be said of the alleged BCN weapons.

[Spiffor]

Azazel:
I think it had to do with scaring his population and Iran. Saddam was in the uncomfortable position where he had to remain in power despite the willingness from the population and Iran to see him go (hence the scare tactics), and despite the pressure from the US (hence the appeasement tactics).

From what I read in the newspapers right after the liberation, it seemed many Iraqis actually feared Saddam would come back with his chem weapons.

Had such scare not existed, Saddam may well have lost power in the hands of a Iran-supported uprising.

Besides, don't forget Saddam is paranoid and fears of being assassinated at any time. I think it explains a part of the restrictions he made to the inspections.

[MrFun]

Someone is going to answer my questions damn it, or there will be tons of gay fairy dust released into the air.

[Kuciwalker]

How is this still news?

I don't get how people are interested by "WMD's still missing".

What's funny is this makes me think of So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. You know, the part about the dolphins

[Space05us]

I still believe they are in place that will be "discovered" during the presidential campaign.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld


Saddam hasn't used chemical weapons since the US stopped supporting him.

He hasn't had much to use them on, except maybe rebels.

[Az]

I think it had to do with scaring his population and Iran. Saddam was in the uncomfortable position where he had to remain in power despite the willingness from the population and Iran to see him go (hence the scare tactics), and despite the pressure from the US (hence the appeasement tactics).

Personally, I think that those reasons are bull. When his people revolted the last time against him, it wasn't the chem weapons that did the job, but the old-fashioned army, even the bleeding army afte GWI. Same with Iran. Saddam has already used his WMD on Iran, and they proved to be a complimenting warfare factor, at best i.e. if Chem and Bio weapons were the only thing he's got, they aren't going to help him much, anyway.

All sides knew this. Therefore, I hardly think that it was the prospect of being attacked with chems and bio weapons that kept Iran in bay. They simply realized that they don't and can't get into such a mess. If the USA gov't is now struggling to hold Iraq together, imagine what a challenge that would be to immensly weaker Iran.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Azazel
What strikes me as completely unreasonable, is Saddam's reluctance to indeed admit that he has none, if he has none, in the aftermath of the Gulf War. He could have this inspections regime gone ages ago, but instead, he chose to put his country through more than a decade of suffering, while also losing out on oil revenues.

The Iraqis repeatedly insisted that they had got rid of all their weapons. We chose not to believe them.

[Kuciwalker]

The Iraqis repeatedly insisted that they had got rid of all their weapons. We chose not to believe them.

They also failed to comply with UN requirements by providing incomplete documentation.

[Az]

The Iraqis repeatedly insisted that they had got rid of all their weapons. We chose not to believe them.

They could wrap this in the 90s. Instead they chose not to, and in the end, sent the inspectors away.

[Sandman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Well that was a really sad performance. He was clearly uncomfortable, which made him a bad liar.

They always give Powell the rotten jobs. Environmental summits, ME peace missions and spouting nonsense to the UN. Whilst Cheney gets easy missions like taking a trip to India and Pakistan and then claiming credit when they decide not to kill each other.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by skywalker

The Iraqis repeatedly insisted that they had got rid of all their weapons. We chose not to believe them.

They also failed to comply with UN requirements by providing incomplete documentation.

It's beyond me why anyone would consider documentation proof of anything in a case like this. We were always going to pick holes in whatever they produced. Iraq was never meant to be able to clear it's name.

[Kuciwalker]

[q]It's beyond me why anyone would consider documentation proof of anything in a case like this. We were always going to pick holes in whatever they produced. Iraq was never meant to be able to clear it's name.[./q]

So, his word is perfectly believable, but if they put it on paper it doesn't matter what they say?

I don't think either is particularly believable, personally, but you are irrational.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Azazel

The Iraqis repeatedly insisted that they had got rid of all their weapons. We chose not to believe them.

They could wrap this in the 90s. Instead they chose not to, and in the end, sent the inspectors away.

How could they have wrapped it up? Just by saying that "we don't have any chemical weapons"? Saddam feared for his regime, since the inspectors could have pin-pointed him and made the way clear for a missile strike.