Skip to comments.BREAKING US to admit officially that Saddam WMDs were moved to Syria in a report to come !!!!!
Posted on 04/11/2008 8:33:43 AM PDT by drzz
click here to read article
The WMD was only a part of our justification for military action. Human rights violations, United Nations resolution violations and other problems gave us justification and incentive to go in.
Your first question has a faulty premise - “IF our goal was to stop WMD proliferation.” That’s not so, otherwise victory would be defined as sweeping in, snatching the weapons and getting out. Our goal was to restore (create?) LONG-TERM stability in the region.
Your second point has more validity - if we’ve allowed these weapons to get into the hands of neighboring countries, that’s a problem, and no mistake. That’s another facet of my strongest criticism of the Bush administration. On the other hand, if some time down the road we must fight another battle, we’ll have a strategic base of operations, some experience in the area, and hopefully a meaningful ally.
Impossible! Don’t you know that Saddam never had any MDs at any time? Why, just ask any liberal.
“Second, France not only allowed the delay to cover their tracks by allowing the goods to be moved, but it allowed them to sell other things too. Like, perhaps, anti tank missiles, night vision systems, surface to air missiles, and Jamming devices supposedly helpful in disrupting JDAM guidance kis”
“Perhaps” ? Sorry, but it does sound like innuendo, as if I was saying “perhaps the US intervention was to cover up the deals the US administration had clinched with Saddam. Perhaps, Perhaps”.
The only claim ever made of wrongful deals was about the Roland missiles, and the Poles had to back down from the claim and make public excuses. Given the alacrity of Franco-US relationship at the time, I doubt that, had there been the slightest element of proof, the White House would have refrained from using it. It would have given credence to the claims that France and other nations opposed the invasion for business reasons, and would have reinforced the “Coalition of the Willing” position.
Again, what would have been France’s angle there ? There was next to no deals with Iraq anymore, not after 1991, and if France had wanted to make money in Iraq and invest in “long-term business” then it would have been immensely simpler to join the Coalition. In January 2003, it was clear that Saddam was going down no matter what, so why strike compromising and potentially very damaging deals with a guy who wouldn’t be around to pay for the delivered good three months later ?
As far as theories go, it just doesn’t fly that well.
Well, it should be an interesting read. I stand ready to eat crow if something conclusive comes off this report, for I always been skeptical - to say the least - about Saddam’s reconstituted (or even reconstituting) WMD arsenal, and its supposed transfer to Syria (or Iran, or Outer Mongolia).
For the life of me I don’t understand why, five years after Iraq was completly overrun, we haven’t been presented a few dozen technicians, officers, scientists, saying all in unison “yes, we were producing WMDs all over again, the WHite House was right and everyone else was wrong”. Nor, if Saddam had some, why he would have given them to Syria, its old rival, rather than use them against Coalition forces.
We’ll see what transpires, and whether I have to change my diet a bit.