SADDAM THOUGHT HE HAD WMD’S; BUT MAY HAVE BEEN DUP

[Mike AI]

Long article, rambles in the begining, but interesting theory....



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-490596,00.html

[JR]

seem plausible that he was fucking with the UN to continue to build up conventional arms. there was definately not a question as to the fact that there was much unnacounted for and that he was certainly less than cooperative every step of the way.

Seems obvious he was up to something. It also seems clear today that he was not trying to hide or protect his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons during the 90's as all the exiles and admistration kept preaching. Remember all the "Saddam Hussein has a love affair for weapons on mass destruction" speeches?

I think an equally believable explaination was that it was only by keeping Iraq at odds with the US and UN, that he was able to hold on to power by portraying himself as he did as a great leader defying the West. ... similar to North Korea today.


PD called it right. Though it may have been more a reflexive reaction based on political bias against a conservative administration and the baboon running it, he was pretty right in the end to be skeptical of motivations.

[Mike AI]

But truthfully, who before the war thought Saddam did NOT have WMDs?

IT was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he had them - liberals, conservatives, doves, and hawks ALL agreed that he probably had weapons.

Could be a lesson for people to show their cards, rather then be obstanant.... I am sure Saddam is probably thinking he should have let in the UN inspectors in hindsight.

I for one still think it was a good move, something that should have been done in the first Gulf War. I think now we have a good opportunity to turn things around in the middle east....

I love the idea of terrorists and jihadist rolling into Iraq.... it is time to defeat them. From what I have read most Iraqies are not happy with these people in their country - so they have been the ones dropping the dime on them.

Kinda like Afganistan, the Afganies never likes the Arabs....

Even if Bush Admin was wrong about WMD, and they could very well have been, it is now our responsibility to clean up the mess, and make lemonade out of lemons....

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by JR@Sep 28 2003, 06:26 PM
I think an equally believable explaination was that it was only by keeping Iraq at odds with the US and UN, that he was able to hold on to power by portraying himself as he did as a great leader defying the West. ... similar to North Korea today.

Saddam didn't stay in power because he was US/UN defient.
He stayed in power because he was ruthless dictator and a paranoid person. The same way that most ruthless paranoid dictators stay in power.
Same for N.Korea.

keeping people ignorant, weal and poor helps in keeping them quiet when they know the price of resisting is life.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JR@Sep 28 2003, 01:26 PM
PD called it right. Though it may have been more a reflexive reaction based on political bias against a conservative administration and the baboon running it, he was pretty right in the end to be skeptical of motivations.

Not nearly as much of a reflexive reaction as you might think. As a matter of fact, in the beginning I was in favor of the moves the Administration was making, although I'm not nearly as quick to embrace the realPolitik of sending Americans to die as some people seem to be.

As it became more and more apparent that the case for war was smoke and mirrors (as exemplified by the pathetic performance of Colin Powell at the UN), and that the attempt to build a coalition for action was a facade constructed for domestic policical purposes only, my suspicions began to grow.

I was NEVER opposed to ousting Saddam Hussien from power. I don't know of ANYONE who was opposed to removing Saddam Hussien from power. There are some pretty simple-minded folks (or folks far more inclined to reflexive reactions than I am) who seem to think that, but that's simply not true. The nuiances of agreeing upon a desired goal while not agreeing upon the means may just be too complex for some people. It follows logically that what may look good on a short-term basis could present far greater dangers over the long haul would just be data far beyond their ability to comprehend.

You may insert the obligatory defeatist, hater, public school educated, brainwashed by CNN remarks here.

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 28 2003, 07:38 PM

As it became more and more apparent that the case for war was smoke and mirrors (as exemplified by the pathetic performance of Colin Powell at the UN), and that the attempt to build a coalition for action was a facade constructed for domestic policical purposes only, my suspicions began to grow.

i agree with you. i was pretty dissapointed as well when i watched that speach. i thought they had a lot of smoking guns... instead, he had just a long string of small and loosely connected pieces of evidence. that whole presentation was pretty bizarre. there seemed to be enough evidence of unnacounted weapons, defiance, lies, murder, genocide etc to make the case without having to embelish. i guess they did not think so.

anyway, they were wrong. they should fry. the whole purpose was to "disarm Suddam Hussein" as they said time and time again. Pretty hard to justify a war to dissarm someone when you can't find any weapons after the fact. especially after spending a couple months making the case that those weapons are undoubtedly there.

[JR]

Originally posted by XXXManager+Sep 28 2003, 06:36 PM-->