Hussein In The Dark On His Own Weapons
From a Times article:
Over the past three months, TIME has interviewed Iraqi weapons scientists, middlemen and former government officials. Saddam's henchmen all make essentially the same claim: that Iraq's once massive unconventional-weapons program was destroyed or dismantled in the 1990s and never rebuilt; that officials destroyed or never kept the documents that would prove it; that the shell games Saddam played with U.N. inspectors were designed to conceal his progress on conventional weapons systems; missiles, air defenses, radar; not biological or chemical programs; and that even Saddam, a sucker for a new gadget or invention or toxin, may not have known what he actually had or, more to the point, didn't have. It would be an irony almost too much to bear to consider that he doomed his country to war because he was intent on protecting weapons systems that didn't exist in the first place.
Based on this article, Saddam Hussein was hiding something but more than likely it was not the type of biological or nuclear weapons the White House and Pentagon were expecting to find.
More likely, Saddam was trying to bluff the U.N. into thinking he had more weapons than he did.
Can we trust this? Who knows. Iraq has been lying to the entire world for so long that its hard to determine the truth from the bunk. Because of this lying, and with all the evidence pointing towards Iraq hiding something, Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was justified. Now that our soldiers can't find the weapons Bush thought were there many have felt the war was useless. How untrue.
We rid the world of a tyrannical regime, a loose cannon in the world who was capable of any type of atrocity. We should be glad that the Iraqi's didn't have the weapons we thought they did:
Pentagon officials were so certain before Gulf War II that the Iraqis had outfitted their forces with chemical weapons that U.S. soldiers storming toward Baghdad wore their hot, heavy chemical weapons gear, just in case. But a captain in Iraq's Special Security Organization, the agency that was responsible for, among other things, the security of weapons sites, says no such arms were available. "Trust me," he says, his eyes narrowed, as he sits in a back-alley teahouse in Tikrit, "if we had them, we would have used them, especially in the battle for the airport. We wanted them but didn't have any."
Why should our government have to justify this war any more?
It was apparent that Hussein would nohesitate use any weapon at his disposal. So he didn't have the weapons. If he'd been honest with the UN we wouldn't have had to invade. Instead he chose to pretend he had weapons, or at least he tried to hide something. Sitting back and guessing what he was hiding wasn't a gamble we were prepared to take. Should we have waited until Iraq used a nuclear weapon before we invaded? How many people would have had to die before it would have been ok to invade?
We shouldn't always need a Pearl Harbor.
TIME.com: Chasing a Mirage -- Oct. 06, 2003
Over the past three months, TIME has interviewed Iraqi weapons scientists, middlemen and former government officials. Saddam's henchmen all make essentially the same claim: that Iraq's once massive unconventional-weapons program was destroyed or dismantled in the 1990s and never rebuilt; that officials destroyed or never kept the documents that would prove it; that the shell games Saddam played with U.N. inspectors were designed to conceal his progress on conventional weapons systems; missiles, air defenses, radar; not biological or chemical programs; and that even Saddam, a sucker for a new gadget or invention or toxin, may not have known what he actually had or, more to the point, didn't have. It would be an irony almost too much to bear to consider that he doomed his country to war because he was intent on protecting weapons systems that didn't exist in the first place.
Based on this article, Saddam Hussein was hiding something but more than likely it was not the type of biological or nuclear weapons the White House and Pentagon were expecting to find.
More likely, Saddam was trying to bluff the U.N. into thinking he had more weapons than he did.Can we trust this? Who knows. Iraq has been lying to the entire world for so long that its hard to determine the truth from the bunk. Because of this lying, and with all the evidence pointing towards Iraq hiding something, Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was justified. Now that our soldiers can't find the weapons Bush thought were there many have felt the war was useless. How untrue.
We rid the world of a tyrannical regime, a loose cannon in the world who was capable of any type of atrocity. We should be glad that the Iraqi's didn't have the weapons we thought they did:
Pentagon officials were so certain before Gulf War II that the Iraqis had outfitted their forces with chemical weapons that U.S. soldiers storming toward Baghdad wore their hot, heavy chemical weapons gear, just in case. But a captain in Iraq's Special Security Organization, the agency that was responsible for, among other things, the security of weapons sites, says no such arms were available. "Trust me," he says, his eyes narrowed, as he sits in a back-alley teahouse in Tikrit, "if we had them, we would have used them, especially in the battle for the airport. We wanted them but didn't have any."
Why should our government have to justify this war any more?
It was apparent that Hussein would nohesitate use any weapon at his disposal. So he didn't have the weapons. If he'd been honest with the UN we wouldn't have had to invade. Instead he chose to pretend he had weapons, or at least he tried to hide something. Sitting back and guessing what he was hiding wasn't a gamble we were prepared to take. Should we have waited until Iraq used a nuclear weapon before we invaded? How many people would have had to die before it would have been ok to invade?We shouldn't always need a Pearl Harbor.
TIME.com: Chasing a Mirage -- Oct. 06, 2003
Rob B.
goon
The Whistler
Bike Bubba
pparets
Hairy Polemic
Chief RZ
