Nothing to see here citizens, move on.
And I'm amazed at people who make the claim that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs despite the fact that they haven't been found. When a country wages a "pre-emptive" war against another country like the U.S. has in this case, it is up to the U.S. to prove that the basis for that war was legitimate . . . and wild speculation about where these so-called WMDs are does not amount to proof in any sense of the word. Quite frankly, I think anyone who believes that a head of state would move his most effective means of defense outside his country -- while he himself crawled down a hole as an invading army toppled his regime -- is pretty damned naive.
I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. if we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. lives over these WMDS -- only to have them spirited out of the country without our knowledge.
If it could have been proven that they originated in Russia, wich I believe they were, then it was a must that we did not find them in Iraq. If you remember, it was the Russians that moved them to Syria and we allowed them to do it.
What a totally ignorant post....
Moved WMDs is not a wild speculation at all, given that it is the standard Russian client state M.O., and we have satellite pics of convoys from Iraq to Syria in the weeks leading up to the war. The very rational reasons for that behavior have been rehashed many times already... I suggest you go back and review what is known about Saddam's WMD strategy, and the fact that he did something very similar before the Gulf War, moving his airforce abroad for safety.
I guess you've forgotten that Saddam sent his entire air force to "safety" in Iran in the first Gulf War. How many of those planes did he get back?
Naturally, WMD were never really the main reason for the war, but EVERYONE in the world believed they were there, and they were dangerous so everyone agreed it was safe to use them as a talking point. Nonetheless, I always cringed when I heard someone say "WMD" prior to the war.
Stopping nuke terror required changing world politics and inserting ourselves into that part of world. That was a fairly inevitable and predictable outcome on the pre-9/11 path we were on before. Preventing our families and civilization from being reduced to charred, screaming cinders justfies a lot. Most people simply have no clue, no clue whatsoever how close we came.
Stratfor.com has a lot more on this, if you'd like to check it out. The book they sell has the gory details; very scary.
Mr. LaRouche will never by president.
Been on DU again, have ya?
I guess all the rest of us are pretty damned naive then.
How is a book written by a member of Saddam's inner circle "wild speculation?"
Nothing to see here citizens, move on.
I believe the weight of evidence supporting the war was based on Iraq's past actions, rather than on their potential actions.
Quite frankly, I think anyone who believes that a head of state would move his most effective means of defense outside his country -- while he himself crawled down a hole as an invading army toppled his regime -- is pretty damned naive.
I don't believe Saddam ever intended to use any WMDs against the US on a field of battle. Rather, their purpose was to establish his position locally as a major warlord and tribal chieftan, and perhaps to be used in terror acts at a time of his choosing. Indeed, he might have succeeded if Osama had not shot his wad on 9/11, as the world was leaning toward easing sanctions on Iraq based on the bribe-driven UN influence, after which time he could reconstitute the suspended nuke operations and recover his bio and chemical weapons from their hiding places. The events of 9/11 screwed that up for him, because it put the US into active mode against terrorists and thugs.
When Saddam hid his WMD and himself, I think he truly believed that the war would blow over and he would regain power. He still does believe that.
I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. if we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. lives over these WMDS -- only to have them spirited out of the country without our knowledge.
I do not consider it a dismal failure, since the goal of regime change has been accomplished, Saddam's nuclear ambitions have been foiled permanently, and the US has shown that as a nation it will indeed back up its words with actions.
DId a DU'er hijack a Freeper's account?
But... but... they will be found any day now.... yawn....
I suppose the 12 IED's found earlier in the war with sarin gas shells are NOT WMD's? Yeah, they were there....my kid was involved with one of those incidents.
Do ya also think that the "oil-for-weapons" program had a little to do with moving WMD's? I'll bet it would be somewhat embarrassing for good-old Saddam to have those weapons found with "made in France, Germany, or Russia" stamped all over them!
England, Germany and France intelligence also believed Iraq had WMD. So did the Clinton administration including WJC-the pervert, AlGore and Madeline Halfbright. WMD were used by Iraq against its Kurd citizens. This is a fact not conjecture. Thus, Iraq did have WMD before the 2003 war and before 9/11. There is no viable counter argument to these facts.
Since in 3 years we have found little-or-no evidence of their continued existence in Iraq, that means they're 1) still buried somewhere in country or, 2) they were secreted outside the country. The correct answer may be both 1 and 2 but the idea that they were transferred to Syria is not a worthless consideration.
Finally, the idea that the war is a dismal failure is specious. Although we have yet to find the WMD, Iraq has been liberated, Saddam is on trial for his life. The Iraqi people have voted not only for their Constitution but a representative government. AQ is clearly on the run in Iraq as well as elsewhere: 1) Just the fact that Sunni Muslims now have turned against Zarqawi is evidence of this; 2)We may have taken out Zawahiri on the 14th as well as other top AQ leaders; 3) AQ has yet to accomplish another attack on the American mainland although on is certainly possible. To pin the war's success or failure on the issue of WMD is not only shortsighted but unsupportable logic. If you wish to be a player in the world of logic and reason, you have to do better than this!
Saddams WMDs were of little military value against American troops well-prepared for WMD attacks. And if Saddam had used WMDs, all possible European resistance to the American invasion would have vaporized.
Whereas shortly after the Iraq War, an al Qaeda attack against Annan, Jordan was thwarted - one that allegedly was going to use chemical weapons in a plot to kill 80,000 people. Where did those weapons come from, AC? Think it's just a coincidence that the attacks were to originate from Syria and the Bekaa Valley?
If you think we went to war against the Iraqi leadership primarily because they had WMD, you are either ignorant or devious.
How naive to believe we would have found these weapons when we only found earlier versions FIVE years after the Iraq War I and then ONLY because Saddam's Sons-in-Law told us where they were.
Besides we did find plenty of forbidden weapons including chemical warheads. And plans and programs and personnel all ready to ramp up things once the Treason Media did its job and convinced all that Saddam was just a kindly uncle.
Not only was this war completely necessary and laudable but it has been a tremendous success. Of course those who pay no attention to military history believe if ONE soldier is killed the whole thing is discredited.