Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Elok]

They used only dinars.

[notyoueither]

bu-dum-tish!

[Straybow]

I've done no such thing, Sandman.

First, I've been pointing out the difference between physical WMDs and WMD programs since the issue first became a matter of debate leading up to the Iraqi invasion. It's been a nagging irritant from the start, the way ignorant people were conflating WMD programs with weapons in the field. This applies both pre-invasion and to any hypothetic non-invasion scenario.

Yeah, right, go on about gas being inefficient and all that. I mention "gassing the Kurds" as a shorthand for proof of Saddam's intent to use WMDs as a part of his reign of terror. That's the whole point, it is a terror weapon.

Saddam was not airforceless. He had choppers and used them against the Shi'ites in the southern no-fly zone. The choppers were supposed to be used only for transportation and humanitarian relief. Yet another violation that the UN refused to make an issue.

Sandman, if there'd been no invasion you are supposing Saddam would not be pushing for parity with Iran?

Talk about living in a fantasy world...

[Flip McWho]

That is a good point. Assuming America didn't dispose Saddam then he would be trying to match penis' with Iran.

Though Irans power has probably increased in part due to removing Saddam from Iraq.

[Sandman]

To most people, WMD 'programs' refers to manufacturing facilities, rather than simply documents. All the talk was of 'mobile labs' and anthrax grown in bathtubs. Insisting on the importance of documents (which have never been found and probably don't exist) is stretching the definition of 'program' to breaking point.

Since Saddam's reign of terror was conducted with conventional weapons, the use of gas would seem to be an irrelevance. I confess to being totally oblivious to the twisted moral logic used by the true WMD believers. What matters to me is the number of people killed, not whether they were killed by a 'terror' weapon.

The point about Saddam wanting 'parity' is meaningless. A nuclear program is a massive industrial undertaking; Iraq simply did not have the economic base to mount such a project.

Before Iran started its nuclear program, Iraq had every incentive to try and get nukes to keep parity with Israel. It failed miserably in this goal after the Osirak raid. Straybow believes in a no-invasion scenario in which Iraq somehow manages to get all sanctions lifted, and can start producing WMDs with impunity, with the international community totally oblivious. The no-fly zones were put in place to protect the Kurds and the Shi'ites; the chances of these being lifted were non-existant, and they would certainly hamper any WMD production.

More tellingly, Iraq's military was totally outclassed by every single one of its neighbours. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria; every one of these countries could have attacked Iraq with ease, with the Iraqis only able to offer minimal resistance.

A country with a shattered military, ruined economy, no friends and limited control of its own territory cannot contemplate pursuing nuclear weapons. Its neighbours (or the US) would certainly take action to eliminate any production facilities, and would face minimal diplomatic penalties for doing so.