What If Iraq Disarms?

Vanity Question

[Williams]

What if Sadaam Hussein actually reveals ALL of his WMD's and turns them over for destruction, and comes completely clean? Perhaps this is unlikely, but doesn't it expose a weakness in U.S. strategy that exists because we chose to go the disarmament route, when our real interest is in regime change?

If the Iraqi's really came clean, there would be an enormous pressure to admit the inspections "worked." The U.S. would say this proved Sadaam's deceit, but wouldn't a full confession be the type of "true change of heart" that we have been saying Iraq must demonstrate?

I think it was Senator Durban on Fox last night who was saying that it would be a "fatal" admission if Iraq admits it has WMD's. The reporter started saying wait a minute, that's not the administration policy, they say they want Sadaam to come clean. The senator back tracked a bit after that.

But the senator was right. Even if Sadaam truly outed his whole WMD program and all the scientists involved, there would be nothing to stop him from rebuilding a huge WMD program, say 5 years from now. With all the emphasis on disarmament, I'm not sure American policy is ready to turn on a dime and go for Sadaam's jugular even as he is disarming. I think Bush's intention is to do so, but it might be very difficult to do after we kept saying Sadaam had a "last chance."

My point is that the disarmament approach is a bad policy. Would it have helped to disarm Hitler in 1939? What do you think he would have been doing in 1941? And Sadaam will have a huge incentive to disarm just before the U.S. attack is launched. I just hope we are prepared to use any such death bed conversion as the reason to finish him off.

[this_ol_patriot]

If Saddam totally and completely disarmed the Iraqi's would be on him like a hound on a raccoon in heat.

[finnman69]

If Iraq disarmed, the last reason why he disarmed would be 'inspections worked'. Saddam's disarming would come about because of the threat of imminent military invasion and Saddam being thrown from power. Saddam could be killed, or caught and tried for war crimes.

No more, no less would be responsible for Iraq disarming. even Blix admits the only thing that got inspectos back in was the threat of military force.

[AntiGuv]

As the admin officials have stated repeatedly, the world knows what a genuine disarmament looks like from past experience with South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and other states. If Iraq legitimately makes the decision to throw the doors open and engage in a disarmament program, there won't be any real doubts. At that point, the justification and rationale for a coercive disarmament will obviously disappear, but the likelihood seems so exceedingly low that speculation appears futile.

[Pyrion]

What if Hell's pilot light goes out?

What if scientists mix bird DNA with pig DNA to create flying pigs?

Gosh I dunno...

[AdamSelene235]

I don't think this attack is about Saddam and his WMD. Its about establishing a base of operations in the Middle East from which to launch attacks against Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Syria,Iran, etc. as needed.

[freedomson]

What if monkeys fly outta my butt?

[RightWhale]

our real interest is in regime change?

Israel is the point.

[Jerrybob]

If Saddam totally and completely disarmed the Iraqi's would be on him like a hound on a raccoon in heat.

---------

I totally disagree. Once you live for a certain number of years in a repressive society like in Iraq, (or England, for that matter) you don't know how to live free -- even if given the opportunity.

Even in this country -- we are living more like subjects than free people.

[rudypoot]

it's not like we already have bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kawait and Turkey...

[smith288]

"I don't think this attack is about Saddam and his WMD. Its about establishing a base of operations in the Middle East from which to launch attacks against Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Syria,Iran, etc. as needed. "

Ummm...kaaaaaaay... I would say its more of having a more central presence. Launching attack randomly against any of those named nations is not, from what I can tell, in the foreign policy. But you are entitled to your theory.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

What if monkeys fly outta my butt?

Stop stuffin yourself with bananas and that won't happen!

[Sam's Army]

Really won't matter; we've got him 6 ways to Sunday as the saying goes:

Support of Al-Qaeda

Money paid to families of suicide bombers

"Ethnic cleansing" (one of Clinton's reasons for Kosovo and Bosnia) of Kurds and Shia's

Tried to kill Bush the First.

Take that exile offer Saddam, it's your only real chance at continued sainthood status from Hollywood.

[Robe]

I think it be more likely that Saddam would castrate himself with a rusty knife on the Larry King Show.

[UncleSamUSA]

This article raises what is commonly referred to as an intellectual red herring. To even pose the question "What if Sadaam Hussein actually reveals ALL of his WMD's and turns them over for destruction, and comes completely clean?" presupposes that a ruthless dictator, who has murdered, poisoned and tortured his people, invaded or made war on two of his immediate neighbors and has stayed in power for over 20 years by ruthless suppression of all dissent and opposition will suddenly have an epiphany and renounce all that he has tried to do over the past two decades. To even state the question is to see how preposterous it is, especially now when he is still hoping to do as little as possible and still convince the Axis of Weasel to let him go with no penalties at all.

The likelihood of Saddam ever cooperating is as preposterous as the likelihood of Hitler ever voluntarily disarming. The author recognized the ridiculousness of his assertion and then proceeded on with his argument. A tiger never changes his stripes.

I do think however, we should all be grateful that our President is GW Bush and not BJ Clinton, and that our Secy of Defense is D Rumsfeld and not that wishy-washy Cohen guy. We at least have men in positions of power who are determined to see through Iraqui deceptions and take them out once and for all.. not appeasers like the Clinton gang who would be bending over backwards to kiss Kofi Annan's arse and lick Chirac's balls.

[new cruelty]

It could happen ;)

[kesg]

Several points. First, it's toolate -- had he done what you suggested in November and December rather than February, he would have had a slightly better chance to survive. Second, he cannot be trusted -- as the events since the passage of Resolution 1441 have proven for the umpteenth time. Third, this isn't just about disarmament, but also about his support of terrorists and his threat to other US allies in the region (Arab and Israeli alike).

The US and many other countries have essentially decided that he is like a malignant tumor that needs to be removed once and for all.

[FreedomPoster]

"as needed" is not the same as "randomly"

[Steven W.]

as President Bush answers this question every time he's asked it, that would be be evidence his regime has changed ... just don't expect it to ever happen that way.

[The Great Satan]

Enough of Saddam's dry anthrax to kill a million people and inflict the total economic loss of New York City could be sitting in a left-luggage locker at Grand Central Station or a bank safety deposit box downtown right now, for all we know. It is undetectable, has an unlimited shelf life, and could easily and effectively be dispersed by hand by a single martyrdom operative. Ergo there is no prospect whatsoever that inspections could "clear" Iraq. Ergo, our participation in the inspections gambit has some other end or ends. I don't think it's particularly hard to figure out what such might be.