It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question to Americans

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and the ability to make more.

You're still stuck on that? I challenge you to provide any reputable source that claims this to be true. Even the Bush regime finally admits they were wrong.
Besides, if Saddam ever had WMD, he should've used them against us while he had the chance. Why wouldn't he?

There are four possible explanations.

Saddam Hussein's regime had the weapons but decided to refrain from using them.
Although that is a possibility, it is a remote one. The Iraqi government exhibited no such restraint during its war with Iran in the 1980s, using chemical weapons both on Iranian troops and on Kurdish civilians Baghdad suspected of aiding Tehran. It strains credulity to suppose that Saddam's regime would have respected international law this time around, especially when the regime faced the certainty of being overthrown in any case. To be blunt, Saddam had nothing to lose by unleashing such weapons on coalition forces.

Iraq's command and control system broke down so quickly that the weapons could not be used.
That explanation seems improbable as well. Although the victory of U.S. and British forces was rapid, it wasn't that rapid. The war went on for 3 weeks, and Iraqi units mounted a credible resistance with conventional forces. Moreover, Baghdad had months to prepare for the U.S.-led assault. That seems more than enough time to prepare attacks with unconventional weapons.

Iraq no longer had chemical and biological weapons. They were destroyed in the 1990s.
That was, in fact, Baghdad's official position in the months leading up to the war. Most experts scoffed at such assertions. But the absence of use during the conflict enhances the credibility of that explanation. If Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons in the hope that such cooperation, with the demands of the United Nations, would allow his regime to remain in power, he obviously made a miscalculation. But if U.S. inspectors continue to be unable to locate the alleged arsenal, that explanation cannot be ruled out.

As a final act of revenge, Saddam transferred the weapons to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
This is the most chilling possibility. It also would be bitterly ironic. The principal rationale for the Bush administration's campaign to overthrow Saddam was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and might pass them along to terrorists. But as CIA Director George Tenet admitted in September 2002, Iraq would have little incentive under normal circumstances to take such a reckless step. Tenet further admitted, though, that if the United States attacked Iraq, all bets were off. Did U.S. leaders create a self-fulfilling prophecy by moving to overthrow Saddam's regime? With nothing to lose, did Saddam set in motion developments that would wreak a terrible revenge on those who triumphed over him in conventional war? We may not know the answer for months or years to come, but that explanation possesses a horrifying logic.

If either the third or the fourth explanation proves to be true, it is bad news for the Bush administration and all Americans. If Iraq no longer had chemical and biological weapons, the primary justification for the war was erroneous, thousands of people died needlessly, and America's reputation will suffer a severe blow throughout the world. Conversely, if Baghdad did have such weapons and passed them along to extremist organizations, the blowback from the military victory in Iraq could be more terrible than we wish to contemplate.



[edit on 10-2-2005 by Moe Foe]




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

moe foe
You're still stuck on that? I challenge you to provide any reputable source that claims this to be true.

Are you kidding?! You doubt he had them? He used them on his own people years back.
of course he has them, and Bush said no such thing. I think your confusing them with Nuclear weapons, because your way off.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Are you kidding?! You doubt he had them? He used them on his own people years back.
of course he has them, and Bush said no such thing. I think your confusing them with Nuclear weapons, because your way off.

Sure, he had some because we gave it to him...20 years ago! I'll bet you have no idea what the shelf life is on that stuff, do you? We had to incinerate tons of our own, not long ago, because they were leaking and/or unstable. I'll bet they're still trying to get rid of it. Have you heard of Johnston Island?



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join