I have yet to understand the fuss. We know that hussein had at least some WMD's, as he used them on his own people. It was nice of the liberal media to give a play-by-play of the "secret" invasion--even though it's so hard to hide something when you only have huge expanses of sandy desert to bury it in when you only have a month or two advance warning --somehow he managed to do it.
I love this comment from below the article.
"You want to find a weapon of mass destruction? Go look in the Oval office."
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie P
Burn go to war in 2003 for something done years earlier and we did nothing about then?
Absolutly not. And you are streatching to manipulate my words. I was pointing out that we knew Sadam had chemical weapons and one point, because he used them on his own people. I never said we went to war because he gassed the Kurd.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Followed it from the begginig. It was not about wether or not he had wmd's it was his refusal to abide by the terms he agreed to. Not one did they ever need to find. He broke the law period.
From the article: "But from the looks of the rocket, it would appear unlikely it could be deployed anywhere in 45 minutes, let alone be fired at the UK, as a certain dossier led us to believe."
From the article: "But from the looks of the rocket, it would appear unlikely it could be deployed anywhere in 45 minutes, let alone be fired at the UK, as a certain dossier led us to believe."
Sure, not after being in the ground for years. It still exists, just like the others that were found and not reported on.
There are a couple angles to this most people don't consider:
First, Saddam Hussein was saddled with not one, but two "no-fly" zones in the period between Desert Storm and the final solution. Both of these were contrary to his ability to subjugate the populations of people living underneath them. He fired at coalition warplanes operating under the authority of the UN for nearly that entire period. You think the "war" ended for Saddam back in 1991? In the "Birthday Palace" in Tikrit, above the ballroom door, were two inscriptions. My 'terp translated one of them as "honoring Saddam Hussein for his victory against the Iranians", and the other as "honoring Saddam Hussein for his victory over the Americans in the 'Mother of all Battles'".
He might have had to get out of Kuwait in '91, but the war hadn't ended for Saddam. As a "survivor", he more than likely saw it in his interest to continue to resist. Resist the no-fly zones. Resist the UN weapons inspectors. And resist all UN mandates.
Second, while every good Arab wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth, or more specifically, the Hebrews living there, Saddam had a big problem with his neighbor, Iran. Not only had he fought a bloody war with Iran through the 80s, Iran still had shadow organizations operating within Iraq's borders prior to the 2003 invasion and throughout the period afterward. For his part, Saddam supported Iranian dissidents like the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), empowering them not only as a proxy to destabilize the Mullahs from within Iran, but also equipping them with conventional weapons allowing them to operate at the brigade-level (organized battalions, etc.) as a "special" force within Iraq's defense structure. The MEK was one of the Iraqi formations that preserved itself by choosing not to fight during the invasion. An immediate concern when the MEK finally agreed to walk completely away from its weapons in May-June 2003 was that the (Iranian-backed) Badr Corps would begin assassinating the MEK's members, hence the U.S. assuming responsibility for their protection at a since nearly forgotten outpost at Ashraf that really didn't make the news again until last summer.
Decimated during 1991 and under sanctions against rebuilding afterward, Saddam's military was probably incapable of repelling a renewed Iranian assault, so it may also be assumed that while Saddam may have appeard to be playing a game of "cat-and-mouse" with the UN over WMDs, in doing so he also portrayed to Iran that invading Iraq might not have been in Iran's best interest.
Given that Saddam was effectively at war with the Iranians and the UN coalition on three fronts throughout the 1990s (north, east, and south), was it in his interest projecting anything BUT the appearance of Iraq as a dangerous, WMD-equipped adversary?
In hindsight, the simple-minded will say that "Iraq had no WMDs, we should not have invaded". In truth, they fail to grasp the true desperation of the madman that Saddam Hussein was, and the lies he propagated to stay on the world's power stage in order to preserve himself.
Nope, no WMDs here
--somehow he managed to do it.
