Posted on 09/27/2004 9:33:35 AM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
What was really going in Iraq before the American invasion last year? Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait - there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years - but was stopped in its tracks by United Nations weapons inspectors after the Persian Gulf war and was never restarted. During the 1990's, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly.
This paints Saddam as a comical figure, a Harpo Marx of a dictator. The real point is to argue that all the Iraqi scientists with nuclear knowledge better be given nice jobs...or else. Now, I don't mind a full employment for physicists act, and maybe that's the smartest money we could spend over there, but let's keep in mind that this article may not be the full truth on these matters.
I knew Saddam was an idiot, but this brings to light an additional element to his lunacy. Had he not invaded Kuwait, he could have had his nukes! A subsequent invasion of Kuwait would then have been an entirely different matter.
Reminds me of Hitler and Operation Barbarossa. Had that idiot persisted with Operation SeaLion, instead of opening a front against Russia, history could have been different.
Thank God for the stupidity of dictators.
US Govt : Saddam links to Bin Laden since 1998 - Kerry wrong again!
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html
Summary AND Links
to US Govt and Media files
linking Osama bin Laden
and Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Since 1998
We have tried to provide a representation of the documentation
available on the Internet
that shows a link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq and Saddam
Hussein.
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
We have made an attempt to provide live links.
If you find dead links or would like more information, or to submit
comments, contact:
JHSmith at archive-news.net
E-mail the media this url
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html
Locate media in all 50 states here
http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
Election 2004 threads on FR
I agree with your assessment as that is what I took away from the article (Op Ed) too.
Stalin was planning an invasion of Europe on 7/6/1941. His own generals were writing about this in their diaries. Had Hitler not punched first, history would have been different. The forward position of the Red Army for the attack was why the Wehrmacht captured so many immediately, and made such impressive progress in 8 short weeks, nearly wrpapping up the whole campaign before the fateful decision to turn south in mid-August. The Red Army could not go on the defensive when they were posied for attack.
Interesting perspective. None of the books on WWII that I have read mention it.
Welcome to FR.
Try:
"Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War" by Viktor Suvorov (pen name of Vladimir Rezun) (former Soviet Military Intelligence Officer)
"Hitler's Panzer's East" by R.H.S. Stolfi (Professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey)
Compare their works to the tripe one gets from the run of the mill university historians.
Wow... must read NYT op-ed from one of Saddam's own nuclear scientists (the one caught with the centrifuge in his garden).
A couple of important points... Kerry voted against the Gulf War, had he been in charge of foreign policy then Saddam woud have had nukes in the mid-90's.
Also, the left had lobbied hard in last several years to lift the UN sanctions against Saddam... according to Obeidi, the sanctions were the only thing delaying Saddam from fully reconstructing his nuclear weapons program.
Many excellent details in this piece... I'm really surprised the NYT let it go to print.
oops... woud = would
Bingo! When has the left been right about anything?
What's your point? Kerry's better?
Placemark
I don't see how growing national threats favor kerry. He has no foreign policy plan other than clinton's head-in-the-sand approach.
Bush has shown he can make tough decisions, take action and handle the critics. kerry's still trying to decide if he agrees with the war in Iraq or not after voting for it, than disagreeing with it, then agreeing we should have gone to Iraq even without WMD, then...
Just so everyone knows that the referenced comment is OneWhiteRing's sole posted comment on FR.
One, who are you planning to vote for in November? Inquiring minds want to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
