Pro war advocates a but too eager?

[shecky]

I've been wondering if they typical pro war types are getting a bit too eager to prove themselves. Particularly by jumping the gun a bit and declaring the existence of Iraqi WMDs whenever there's the slightest hint that they may be found? We've seen chemical, nuke findings make sudden appearances in the media, with the usual suspects hastily holding these as proof, only for the stories to wither up later.

Seems to me there's a reasonable likelyhood evidence of such weapons will be found given enough time. Hussein does have a history after all. So why all the exhuberance over sudden and poorly verified news stories?

[Denise]

Cause I'm the excitable type. Something I must work on!

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Denise
Cause I'm the excitable type.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing...:)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Megalodon


You make it sound like it's a bad thing...:)

It has gotten me in trouble. I don't always think through things. Yep, I'm working on it!

Originally posted by shecky
I've been wondering if they typical pro war types are getting a bit too eager to prove themselves. Particularly by jumping the gun a bit and declaring the existence of Iraqi WMDs whenever there's the slightest hint that they may be found? We've seen chemical, nuke findings make sudden appearances in the media, with the usual suspects hastily holding these as proof, only for the stories to wither up later.

Seems to me there's a reasonable likelyhood evidence of such weapons will be found given enough time. Hussein does have a history after all. So why all the exhuberance over sudden and poorly verified news stories?

And I get hammered for some of the things I say....

"Typical pro war types?"

I don't think the issue of WMD will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the pro-war side (and I am one of them), if no WMD are found. But most of us will swallow it. There will be a minority who will cry to the end of their days that there are/were WMD in Iraq, though.

It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the anti-war side if WMD are found. But most of them will swallow it. But there will be a minority who will cry to the end of their days that that is/was still not a good enough reason to invade like imperialist raiders. And an even smaller minority who will cry that we planted the evidence.

I am willing to wait up to a year for the dust to settle and the evidence, or lack of it, to yield itself. The war is done. Can't be undone. So there is no need to rush to conclusions about WMD.

I think the evidence will be more plausible if found sooner, though, while there are a large number of troops still around. It is hard to buy into a conspiracy that involves thousands of conspirators all keeping their mouths shut. G.I. Joe is the best deterrent you can ask for when it comes to pulling a fast one.

[arcticpenguin]

Regarding WMD - the evidence shouldn't be subtle. Accurding to the U.S. administration, the Iraqis had thousands of tons of chemical and biological material for warheads.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shecky
I've been wondering if they typical pro war types are getting a bit too eager to prove themselves. Particularly by jumping the gun a bit and declaring the existence of Iraqi WMDs whenever there's the slightest hint that they may be found? We've seen chemical, nuke findings make sudden appearances in the media, with the usual suspects hastily holding these as proof, only for the stories to wither up later.

Seems to me there's a reasonable likelyhood evidence of such weapons will be found given enough time. Hussein does have a history after all. So why all the exhuberance over sudden and poorly verified news stories?

I must apologize for this as well. I guess I've done it because I really, really expect it to be found and soon. But I must also express a great deal of relief because I thought that the way we'd find it would be that they'd use it on our guys. If that's the only definative way of finding them than let me be the first to say I'll be glad if we don't.

-z

[jimlintott]

This has bothered me a great deal. I kept wondering why the WMDs weren't used while the coalition forces were gathering in Kuwait. That seemed like the best time to use them to me. Attack the invaders before they invade. Why wait until they surround your capitol city? WMDs usually bring plenty of collateral damage. Why risk your own people? The time to attack was while the forces were massing at the border.

So, why didn't they use them? There are many possible reasons.
1. They have WMDs but were reluctant to use them.
2. They have WMDs but had no way to deliver them to a target.
3. They have no WMDs.

The thing that bothers me the most is the changing of the objective. Fist it was Saddam is a terrorist who has WMDs and he must be stopped and the weapons found and destroyed. Then it has shifted to liberating the oppressed Iraqis themselves. The former I could not support as I could not see enough proof of the premise. The latter I can support. (Reluctantly, as I am a hippie peacenik) I suspect that if WMDs are found it will shift back.

[c0rbin]

So, why didn't they use them? There are many possible reasons.
1. They have WMDs but were reluctant to use them.
2. They have WMDs but had no way to deliver them to a target.
3. They have no WMDs.


4. If they use them, they lose what support they had in the international community and verify what we imperialist raiders claimed.

[aerocontrols]

4. They had both WMD and the means to deliver them, but

a) were uncertain that they could deliver them past our defenses to a coalition city (Kuwait City or somewhere in Israel)

b) were doubtful that they would cause casualties against our military in the field, which was prepared for them

and thus they didn't use them. Plus, if they try and fail, they lose the international support c0rbin mentioned while gaining nothing.

MattJ

[Martin]

Just to be picky - don't those technically fall under Jim's option 1?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Martinm
Just to be picky - don't those technically fall under Jim's option 1?

Yes, I suppose they do.

Is the any doubt Hussein had WMD during the Gulf War in 1991? He didn't use them then, either.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LukeT
Is the any doubt Hussein had WMD during the Gulf War in 1991? He didn't use them then, either. True, but he wasn't fighting for his life at the time.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
True, but he wasn't fighting for his life at the time.

Yep. And if he had, he would have then suddenly found himself fighting for his life.

There is one other argument that the pro-war side can make that I didn't think of in my first post in this topic, if no WMD are found.

"The WMD have been moved to Syria." Or some other place.

Iran?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LukeT


Yep. And if he had, he would have then suddenly found himself fighting for his life.

There is one other argument that the pro-war side can make that I didn't think of in my first post in this topic, if no WMD are found.

"The WMD have been moved to Syria." Or some other place.

Iran? Hmmm. The argument that he would send away the WMD seems illogical. Why would Saddam move these weapons out of his immediate control when he was well aware that the coming war was not about ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but rather about ousting himself?

[jj]

SOME of the pro-war advocates are, it seems to me, trying to use anything they can get their hands on to increase the influence of the right-wing extremists who are running the country.

Some are merely following the war.

All generalities are false, and we have a very strange sort of split here, because quite a few of the people who think Saddamn has just gotta go, and the sooner the better (me, for instance) think 'W' has utterly, stupendously blown it by the WAY he went about things.

To many people in other countries, rightly or wrongly, we look no better AT ALL that Saddamn did when he attacked Kuwait. Part of this is due to the stunning ineptness of how we represented our actions, part of it due to the stupid sabre-rattling in the UN, and part of it due to an ignorant, dangerous public dismissal of why world opinion matters. We MUST pay attention to the propaganda side, and we MUST be sure that we manage to represent our intentions fairly. What we've done here, instead, is fall entirely, and abolutely, into the hands of the worst anti-US rhetoricians, and given them words and actions that they never imagined we'd provide them with.

THAT is due to the utter stupidity of the WAY that this administration went about things, NOT the "what" of what they did.

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT

There is one other argument that the pro-war side can make that I didn't think of in my first post in this topic, if no WMD are found.

"The WMD have been moved to Syria." Or some other place.

Iran?

That wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I wouldn't be surprised if Saddamn gave them to the Taliban or Al-Quaeda, even though the two hate each other, simply because he knew he was going down, end of discussion, and he saw a way to strike back from, as it were, the gates of hill.

Btw, it sounds for all the world like the "nuclear site" they found was in fact an above-ground nuclear waste facility. What would anyone thing if they searched Hanford, here, for instance?

[apoger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hmmm. The argument that he would send away the WMD seems illogical. Why would Saddam move these weapons out of his immediate control when he was well aware that the coming war was not about ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but rather about ousting himself?

Saddam survived the last war and kept the assets he hid while losing much of what he exposed. It's possible he felt he could survive this incusion and simply hide the weapons so he would have them after we left. He had precendent that this might work and plenty of warning to bury evidence.

Considering his limited options, trying to deplete our morale via losses while denying us his life or proof of WMDs, could have been a vaild strategy. Fortunately the loss of life, while still tragic, has been low compared to what it could have been.

[jj]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hmmm. The argument that he would send away the WMD seems illogical. Why would Saddam move these weapons out of his immediate control when he was well aware that the coming war was not about ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but rather about ousting himself?

Pure, overwhelming hatred for the people who were taking him down?

The hope that somebody else could use them more effectively, perhaps, since he knew he was burnt toast.

There were reports that Syria was moving arms into Iraq to aid Hussein as the fighting was happening. There was even a report yesterday, after Baghdad had fallen, that arms were still coming in from Syria.

Maybe a trade. Arms for WMD. :D

edited to correct typo.

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT
There were reports that Syria was moving arms into Iraq to aid Hussein as the fighting was happening. There was even a report yesterday, after Baghdad had fallen, that arms were still coming in from Syria.

Maybe a trade. Arms for WMD. :D

edited to correct typo.


Not sure why the smiley face, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by apoger


Saddam survived the last war and kept the assets he hid while losing much of what he exposed. It's possible he felt he could survive this incusion and simply hide the weapons so he would have them after we left. He had precendent that this might work and plenty of warning to bury evidence.

Considering his limited options, trying to deplete our morale via losses while denying us his life or proof of WMDs, could have been a vaild strategy. Fortunately the loss of life, while still tragic, has been low compared to what it could have been. No, it is not possible that he thought he could survive this incursion. He was well aware of the state of his forces and could hardly doubt that the US would pour in whatever forces it took to win, once the war had begun.

Given his history of self-adoration and grandstanding as "leader of the Arab world", it would seem perfectly in line to "go out with a bang, and not a whimper".

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by jj


Pure, overwhelming hatred for the people who were taking him down?

The hope that somebody else could use them more effectively, perhaps, since he knew he was burnt toast. Saddam didn't trust anyone. Why give away his means of "eternal glory" for the hope that some terrorists might do some damage to the West?

[EvilYeti]

I'm a pro-war advocate and I'm not particullarly eager to uncover any WMD's. In fact, if we find huge caches of them, its going to be pretty expensive to safely dispose of the stuff. We cant just blow them up like we did in the first Gulf War, with all the allegations of the health problems that may have caused.

I think focusing on supposed evidence of WMD's prior to the war was a mistake. Violating the terms of a surrender is a perfectly valid causus belli and the only justification we needed to remove Saddam from power. Whether he actually had WMD's is irrelevant, whats important is the Iraqi regime prevented us from engaging in operations that were a condition of their surrender. That is unacceptable.

That said, I still will like to see some hard evidence turn up, if for no other reason than my own personal amusement. I am getting a huge kick out of the leftist backpedaling these days.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'm a pro-war advocate and I'm not particullarly eager to uncover any WMD's. In fact, if we find huge caches of them, its going to be pretty expensive to safely dispose of the stuff. We cant just blow them up like we did in the first Gulf War, with all the allegations of the health problems that may have caused.

I think focusing on supposed evidence of WMD's prior to the war was a mistake. Violating the terms of a surrender is a perfectly valid causus belli and the only justification we needed to remove Saddam from power. Whether he actually had WMD's is irrelevant, whats important is the Iraqi regime prevented us from engaging in operations that were a condition of their surrender. That is unacceptable.

That said, I still will like to see some hard evidence turn up, if for no other reason than my own personal amusement. I am getting a huge kick out of the leftist backpedaling these days. "Backpedaling" seems to be in vogue, across the political spectrum. Suddenly, the actual existence of WMD is of secondary importance. It's the question of the obstruction of weapons inspectors' work that is/was the problem. Cool.

I'm just wondering what relevance this obstruction has to Bush's 48 hour ultimatum to Saddam to leave Iraq (with his sons).

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
That said, I still will like to see some hard evidence turn up, if for no other reason than my own personal amusement. I am getting a huge kick out of the leftist backpedaling these days.

Which leftist backpedaling? Jedi's? Luke's? :rolleyes:

[bva]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"Backpedaling" seems to be in vogue, across the political spectrum. Suddenly, the actual existence of WMD is of secondary importance. It's the question of the obstruction of weapons inspectors' work that is/was the problem. Cool.


Not from my perspective. Finding WMD is paramount. We will find them and it will be clear even to you.

Suppose tests reveal this recently discovered nuclear waste site, or whatever it is, once held weapons grade plutonium......where did it go?

[Martin]

Originally posted by LukeT
Suppose tests reveal this recently discovered nuclear waste site, or whatever it is, once held weapons grade plutonium......where did it go? Recently discovered? That would be the waste site we already knew was there? That was monitored by the IAEA?

[DavidJames]

"It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the anti-war side if WMD are found."

Speaking personally this is nonsense. I have been skeptical of the U.S. govt's claims. I have not said they're weren't any. If they are found, I will be very thankful they weren't used and will, in hindsight, recognize that invading was the right thing. So please, stop trying to define others in ways that suit you.

Denise, this is an example of what I meant. This is the first post I've read since I saw your response to me yesterday and it took all of 2 minutes to find an example. Skeptics, hmmmm

Originally posted by DavidJames
"It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the anti-war side if WMD are found."

Speaking personally this is nonsense. I have been skeptical of the U.S. govt's claims. I have not said they're weren't any. If they are found, I will be very thankful they weren't used and will, in hindsight, recognize that invading was the right thing. So please, stop trying to define others in ways that suit you.

Denise, this is an example of what I meant. This is the first post I've read since I saw your response to me yesterday and it took all of 2 minutes to find an example. Skeptics, hmmmm

First, one of the principle reasons for invading Iraq was the claim that Hussein had WMD. The anti-war crowd has disputed this claim from the get-go. Need evidence?

Second, if you read the whole paragraph that you lifted my quote from, you would have seen I said that some will claim this was never a good enough reason to invade Iraq to begin with.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


Which leftist backpedaling? Jedi's? Luke's? :rolleyes:

Start reading here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567739103.html) for example.

Read back through the recent posts of AUP and Dr.Chinese for some more comedy.

Jedi is alot of things, but in all fairness I don't think it would be very accurate to label him a leftist! :D

Originally posted by DavidJames
This is the first post I've read since I saw your response to me yesterday and it took all of 2 minutes to find an example. Skeptics, hmmmm

I am seriously skeptical that the post of mine which you just quoted is the first post you read since yesterday. I am extremely skeptical of your 2 minute claim. Care to rephrase?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"Backpedaling" seems to be in vogue, across the political spectrum. Suddenly, the actual existence of WMD is of secondary importance. It's the question of the obstruction of weapons inspectors' work that is/was the problem. Cool.

I'm just wondering what relevance this obstruction has to Bush's 48 hour ultimatum to Saddam to leave Iraq (with his sons).

I've held that position well prior to the war and as I said, disagreed with the Bush administration focusing on the WMD's themselves, rather than the regimes efforts to hide them. We could not prove, at the time, that Saddam had these weapons, but we COULD prove that he was deliberately sabotaging the efforts of the weapons inspectors (for whatever reason). I'm not backpeddling and neither is the Bush administration, we are both sticking to our principles.

Do you think that the defeated aggressor in a war should be able to dictate the terms of its surrender?

I have no idea what your reference to Bush's ulimatum has to do with the current topic.

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Jedi is alot of things, but in all fairness I don't think it would be very accurate to label him a leftist! :D

Oh, sure. Come to Jedi's defense when he's called a lefty, but leave me hanging! :(

:D

I think jj was pulling someone's leg. He all but called me a right wing looney in banter today.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by LukeT


Oh, sure. Come to Jedi's defense when he's called a lefty, but leave me hanging! :(


Actually, I didnt know who JJ was talking about! For some reason my brain didnt make the jump from Luke to LukeT.

JJ is pretty cranky most of time, which explains why he seems to dislike everyone about equally. I honestly don't know what his real political motivations are.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Start reading here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567739103.html) for example.

Read back through the recent posts of AUP and Dr.Chinese for some more comedy.

Jedi is alot of things, but in all fairness I don't think it would be very accurate to label him a leftist! :D

Goodness gracious! YOU have HEARD OF sarcasm, haven't you?

It was a joke, freak-all, it was a JOKE, man.

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:I've held that position well prior to the war and as I said, disagreed with the Bush administration focusing on the WMD's themselves, rather than the regimes efforts to hide them. We could not prove, at the time, that Saddam had these weapons, but we COULD prove that he was deliberately sabotaging the efforts of the weapons inspectors (for whatever reason). I'm not backpeddling and neither is the Bush administration, we are both sticking to our principles. You just said that the Bush administration was "focusing on the WMD's themselves". They have yet to turn up. So while they may not be backpedaling, they may have some explaining to do.

In regard to your previous statement that "violating the terms of a surrender is a perfectly valid causus belli and the only justification we needed to remove Saddam from power", those terms and the decision of whether they were broached and what to do if they were, was up to the entity which made the terms, i.e. the UN Security Council.
Do you think that the defeated aggressor in a war should be able to dictate the terms of its surrender?No.
I have no idea what your reference to Bush's ulimatum has to do with the current topic. Bush's ultimatum has nothing to do with the reasons you give as the reasons you feel invasion was fully justified. The ultimatum was pulled out of thin air. Yet it was the pretext upon which the "coalition" started the war.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Actually, I didnt know who JJ was talking about! For some reason my brain didnt make the jump from Luke to LukeT.

JJ is pretty cranky most of time, which explains why he seems to dislike everyone about equally. I honestly don't know what his real political motivations are.

Gawrsh, batman, look who used to do my computer support, no wonder I'm cranky! :D :D

I'm a right-leaning moderate. Most rightists can't see that because I'm an atheist right-leaning moderate, and as a result I don't share their desire to usurp everyone's human rights in order to save their souls. Most leftists are ready to pull me right into their fold, then gun control comes up, and they wind up pulling their controlled guns instead of letting me cross the threshold. And, of course, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, I'm in the old (pay as you go) right, not in the new (borrow more than FDR ever did) right.

Most leftist crazies think I'm right of Attila. Most rightist crazies think I'm left of Engels.

That's because neither of them can tolerate a moderate position that is strongly held, and I am pretty good at bringing out the craziness in both.

Luke, I don't think you're so Jedi Kook-like.

I think you assign way way too much importance to some really cranky rightwing publications, and that they yank your chain all over the ballpark. While I do sometimes think that Jedi is really an Onion reporter in disguise, and I think he's here to cause arguments with people who really really don't agree with his extremely rightist views, I don't think you're in the same boat. Well, first, you come off as genuine. Need I say that's a real step up? Jedi almost looks like a leftist parody of a rightwing lunatic to me. Hey, maybe that's why he knows so much about the left, he's one of their disinformation specialists! ;)


I still think that the marxist left is dead, dead, dead. They have yet to expire, but unless somebody else gives them a REASON for existance (e.g. by usurping our civil rights) they are dead, dead, dead. I quite frankly think that this harping is giving them an excuse to get another last gasp.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla

But I must also express a great deal of relief because I thought that the way we'd find it would be that they'd use it on our guys. If that's the only definative way of finding them than let me be the first to say I'll be glad if we don't.

-z

Well, we can certainly agree on that!

I still wonder where in Syria they are. Note lack of smiley face.

[jj]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Saddam didn't trust anyone. Why give away his means of "eternal glory" for the hope that some terrorists might do some damage to the West?

Because it's his only way to get back at somebody?

[jj]

Originally posted by LukeT


First, one of the principle reasons for invading Iraq was the claim that Hussein had WMD. The anti-war crowd has disputed this claim from the get-go. Need evidence?

Second, if you read the whole paragraph that you lifted my quote from, you would have seen I said that some will claim this was never a good enough reason to invade Iraq to begin with.

Whoa, there. Am I part of the anti-war crowd, Luke?

Because if I am, you've got at least one of the anti-war crowd completely wrong. I'm as sure as anyone can be without hard evidence that he has/had them, and that if they're gone now instead of still hidden or shipped out-country it's because we dropped something large and noisy on them.

[EvilYeti]

:rolleyes: == sarcasm?

I thought ;) was sarcasm and :rolleyes: was exasperation!!!

Some really needs to write up an RFC for those fscking things!!!

Originally posted by jj


Goodness gracious! YOU have HEARD OF sarcasm, haven't you?

It was a joke, freak-all, it was a JOKE, man.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
:rolleyes: == sarcasm?

I thought ;) was sarcasm and :rolleyes: was exasperation!!!

Some really needs to write up an RFC for those fscking things!!!



Ok, then what's exasperated sarcasm?

All of these flat-out-insane attacks on "leftists", and crap about apologies, backpeddling, etc, are some of the least ethical attempts I've seen to garner political points in quitea while now, like almost since the elder Bush administration. Why next thing you know, we'll be talking about the "felony administration", and it will be Clinton (score: 1) instead of RayGun (score: N)

No, really, my sister WAS bitten by a moose!

[Morwen]

Um, to go completely off-topic for a second... JJ, I hadn't really looked at you avatar, merely glanced at it out of the corner of my eye... I always thought it was an amateurishly-made pendulum clock, wall-mounted, and photographed by someone with a defective spatial perception, since there's no face.

Now I discover it's a toilet. Ahem.

Scarred for life. Need to get therapy.

And a new set of neurons. My pair must have worn out.

Back to you regular programming...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by LukeT


Yep. And if he had, he would have then suddenly found himself fighting for his life.

There is one other argument that the pro-war side can make that I didn't think of in my first post in this topic, if no WMD are found.

"The WMD have been moved to Syria." Or some other place.

Iran?

If this is proposed by the Bush/Blair Administrations then evidence will need to be presented of the existance of the WMD and that they were transported to Syria or to a country with a more "porous" border.

It would have been a rather daunting task to attempt to transport WMDs past US military checkpoints on the way to Syria in the last 3 weeks. Or if Saddam's Regime transported these suspect weapons over the last year to Syria then US military satelites may be able to determine movement. Again , evidence is needed. I can speculate all I want, coming up with all sorts of scenarios. Without proof speculation is all that is possible.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by bva


Not from my perspective. Finding WMD is paramount. We will find them and it will be clear even to you.

Why is finding WMD paramount? Will it give some emotional satisfaction?

How do you know the WMD will be found? Are you clairovoyant? Were you presented this information through an omnipotent, all seeing authority?

[DavidJames]

"The anti-war crowd has disputed this claim from the get-go. Need evidence?"

The anti-war crowd? Everyone who is anti-war has said Hussein does not have WMD? Yes please provide evidence that everyone who is anti-war has said Hussein does not have WMD.

[DavidJames]

"I am seriously skeptical that the post of mine which you just quoted is the first post you read since yesterday. I am extremely skeptical of your 2 minute claim."

I agree, you are very skeptical, and have a keen ability to focus that skepticism where it really matters :rolleyes:

[peptoabysmal]

I've been wondering if the anti-war protesting is going to go on longer than the actual war itself?

And how is finding WMD relevant to whether or not removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do?

[ImpyTimpy]

Well, it WAS the reason given for the armed incursion into the country. I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that Saddam's regime was brutal, however people disagree with the reason given for the war (in my opinion). Also war should only be used as the last resort, when ALL diplomatic avenues are exhausted.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I've been wondering if the anti-war protesting is going to go on longer than the actual war itself?

And how is finding WMD relevant to whether or not removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
4. They had both WMD and the means to deliver them, but

a) were uncertain that they could deliver them past our defenses to a coalition city (Kuwait City or somewhere in Israel)

b) were doubtful that they would cause casualties against our military in the field, which was prepared for them

and thus they didn't use them. Plus, if they try and fail, they lose the international support c0rbin mentioned while gaining nothing.

MattJ

I don't think there was any actual support for Saddams regime, apart from some in the Arab world who saw him as someone who stood up to the West.

What did he have to lose by using them? Hung for a sheep as a lamb, as they say. Any actual international support they did get wasn't going to help them if they lost the farm. And the extremists, many of whom would have seen Saddam as an ally of convenience rather than a true allie, would not have minded one bit if Saddam used chemical weapons.

Lets face it, Saddam was about as good a military leader as Hitler. They were both hopeless, but Hitler had better Generals under him, and the loyalty of the people. His whole army strategy could have been a lot better, but even if it was, his army was not motivated to sacrifice themselves for him, and the US doesn't have to fight man to man.

For all the US rhetoric about suicide bombers and hiding behind civilians etc not being a mans way to fight a war, they don't exactly fight like 'men' either, (in the traditional and honourable 'warrior to warrior' sense).

The tactic of the US is to spot the enemy, and then call in massive tactical artillery and air support. Whole battallions were destroyed without a single shot being fired by a man on the ground.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hmmm. The argument that he would send away the WMD seems illogical. Why would Saddam move these weapons out of his immediate control when he was well aware that the coming war was not about ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but rather about ousting himself?

Would Iran be happy to help out Saddam by hiding weapons that had been used against them?

[bva]

no surprise North Korea wants to open up a comm channel with the US now. Its call preventative maintenances. Just another reason this war proves just by laying a foundation of bad things to come ofr terrorist and enemies of the free world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by shecky
I've been wondering if they typical pro war types are getting a bit too eager to prove themselves. Particularly by jumping the gun a bit and declaring the existence of Iraqi WMDs whenever there's the slightest hint that they may be found? We've seen chemical, nuke findings make sudden appearances in the media, with the usual suspects hastily holding these as proof, only for the stories to wither up later.

Seems to me there's a reasonable likelyhood evidence of such weapons will be found given enough time. Hussein does have a history after all. So why all the exhuberance over sudden and poorly verified news stories?

In the interest of fairness, I should humbly point out that I, who am on the anti-war side, have done this a couple of times, probably more, and been justifiably chastised for it. No one is immune.