Iraq Comes Clean (hands over WMD)!! Hummm.

2/7/03 | Life of Brian

[Life of Brian]

Suppose it happened. I'm talking about Iraq and Saddam laying out at the inspectors feet all of their WMD or at least enough to satisfy the inspectors. What then? Headlines read: "IRAQ DISARMS!" Is it unlikely to happen? Perhaps, but wouldn't it be somehow ironically anti-climactic? Everything is verified. Everything is in order. Now what? Do the UN resolutions address how to respond in such an event? I would be interested to know how Freepers feel about this or how "the world community" handles an Iraq that 'comes clean'.

[The Great Satan]

We have the anthrax letters and the analysis thereof, so there is not the slightest chance in the world that Saddam could dodge this bullet. He may try, knowing that we don't have any counter to his WMD, but, at least from an evidentiary standpoint, we hold all the cards. Why else do you think we'd be following this strategy?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

The "world community" would owe Bush a major thank you. He is the only president who had the guts to confront Saddam. Otherwise Saddam would keep developing the WMDs that he didn't have and wasn't developing but just handed over.

[Mr. Mojo]

I'd imagine that we've contemplated this scenario and are holding our "proof" cards - proof of Saddam's complicity in both 9/11 and the subsquent anthrax attacks - until or unless he tries it. If he does, we'll lay those cards on the table.....and it'll be a royal flush.

[The Great Satan]

Well, you got to play to your strengths.

[chance33_98]

Fine with me. If this war was only about oil we could easily remedy that by lifting all sanctions and cutting deals with saddam for the oil - make him an offer he couldn't refuse.

That said I would still want the man dead - he is a murdering scum (and no, he is not the only one on my list). But there are more then just WMD to worry about. Money he would make if scenario A above was to happen would be troublesome. How much would, like with Osama and the saudis, go to fund terrorist attacks against the US? Osama had no oil, no country, and yet we went after him. Saddam's hatred of the jews and the US runs deep (and of other arab countries).

He is a threat regardless. Gore, Clinton, Bush have all stated that Saddam must go. The left keeps wanting to spin oil (but they seem to have been quiet in the 90's).

Saddam murders children, tortures people, and so on. I find it no surprise than that the left embraces him and wants to protect him. The leftists say they are against war because of how it will affect the iraqi citizens - why then have then not been having peace marches against the policies of Saddam? Why no mass letter writing campaigns, why no protesting out in front of Iraqi embassies? Why no Human shields in front of the places of torture of women and children?

The left is a lie. WMD or no, saddam must go.

Taliban, Clinton, Saudi Involvement - All laid out in a book published in 2000 (from USMC.MIL site)

The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)

Headline Rundown and links on Iraq - Things the democrats have conviently forgot...

Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton -clear and present danger to safety of people everywhere 1998

Gore repeats that Saddam MUST GO - June 2000

What the democrats want you to forget

Iraq is a Regional Threat, capable of as much as 200 tons of VX nerve agent (1999 Clinton report)

Czech military reports say iraq has smallpox virus in weapons stockpile (and camelpox)

2/7/1998 : Arab media: Clinton will strike due to sex scandal (&links to tons of arab news on clinton)

Iraqi chemical weapons buildup reported (Sept 2001 Report)

Clinton, Gore rally domestic support for strike at Iraq, "unholy axis" (1998 Must read)

statement President Clinton from 1998 on the air strikes

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Full Text, Sense of Congress - Remove Saddam

[Mr. Mojo]

Indeed you do.

Incidentally, do you still think we won't be engaging Iraq in battle?

[Life of Brian]

there is not the slightest chance in the world that Saddam could dodge this bullet.

Do you mean that even IF he comes clean and leads inspectors to his stash of WMD that the US attacks? I don't think you mean that but I am not sure what you are thinking. To me, I think unless it is spelled out somewhere that Saddam must go in the event that there are or were weapons there (knowing there are) that Saddam does 'dodge' this bullet if he comes clean.

[Brad’s Gramma]

You are good! Thanks for all of that ammo!!!!

[M. Peach]

Do you remember that guy who tried to climb into the UN vehicle claiming he had some information to give - and the UN inspectors just let the Iraqi soldiers take him away?

I wonder where (or if) he is right now? Probably not in a very good place. Do you think anyone else would risk laying down their arms?

In my opinion, not a chance...

[Life of Brian]

The "world community" would owe Bush a major thank you. He is the only president who had the guts to confront Saddam. Otherwise Saddam would keep developing the WMDs that he didn't have and wasn't developing but just handed over.

Agreed. But isn't the little problem of Saddam and his butchers still there? Doesn't he live for another day to develop more down the road?

[The Great Satan]

Saddam was the author of 9-11. Take that to the bank. Weaponized anthrax does not grow on trees -- nor would al-Qaeda have any motivation to hold back if they somehow managed to acquire the technology independent of Saddam. So Saddam has to be taken care of. But, by the same token, Saddam already has the capability to kill many millions of Americans in the end game, and there is nothing we can do about it -- not yet anyway. So, we have the goods on Saddam, but he can't kill him because we're in a Mutual Assured Destruction standoff of his devising. That is the central dynamic which explains the last 18 months, and will govern what happens during the next 18 months.

[Dec31,1999]

We could all hang out, join hands and sing Kumbaya! (In Arabic)

[Life of Brian]

I'd imagine that we've contemplated this scenario and are holding our "proof" cards - proof of Saddam's complicity in both 9/11 and the subsquent anthrax attacks - until or unless he tries it. If he does, we'll lay those cards on the table.....and it'll be a royal flush.

So in that event, (ie. we have proof of his complicity in 9/11 and anthrax), then we still attack? Or does the game then become an ultimatim that either Saddam hands himself over to, say, the world court, or the US or we attack?

[weegee]

We could still push for regieme change as the UN pressed for in Kosovo. Dictator in power killing his own people (Kurds) and proof of WMD means proof that he violated the "peace" in the treaty from Gulf War I.

If he is not at "peace" then he is at war and can be deposed. It would not require a war but he would not be able to remain in power and could even be tried for violating human rights.

Saddam's days are numbered. The best he can hope for is to run away (but as some would say, "And what, give up show business/power?")

[The Great Satan]

Before any attack --- certainly any direct attact -- we need to neutralize what he's got. That isn't going to happen next week, or next month, I'm afraid. Prepare for the long haul.

[chance33_98]

Do you mean that even IF he comes clean and leads inspectors to his stash of WMD that the US attacks? I don't think you mean that but I am not sure what you are thinking. To me, I think unless it is spelled out somewhere that Saddam must go in the event that there are or were weapons there (knowing there are) that Saddam does 'dodge' this bullet if he comes clean.

There would then ensue charges against him in international courts for mass murder and he would become a war criminal (and why that has not been done by now is beyond me). Either way he goes the best he can hope for is a delay. Not to mention he has likely helped osama and crew - and Bush already promised to hunt those folks down. Giving up WMD may delay his demise, but it will not stop it. As far as going to war is concerned it would, most likely, avert war for now.

The war to come is to head off his use and making of WMD AND to stop further use of his kingdom for terrorist attacks against the US and others. He makes many in the ME nervous and those in high levels of power there would like to see him gone - though they have trouble saying it publically as they have to keep the fundies happy.

He is a war criminal, a terrorist, an evil dictator. Hopefully that will all get focus and not just the WMD. Airplanes killed 3000 people, terrorists like him don't need WMD, they just need power, money, and idiots to follow (much like the leftists who are easily swayed into terrorism - at least according to a military report put out during the Clinton Administration).

[Mr. Mojo]

If it goes down as I outlined, then we attack. If Americans knew the truth about Saddam's responsibility in both 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, we'd demand that Saddam's regime be destroyed immediately. No "world court", no UN.

[Life of Brian]

I wonder where (or if) he is right now? Probably not in a very good place. Do you think anyone else would risk laying down their arms? In my opinion, not a chance...

No I don't think anyone would, but if disarming became the new policy of Saddam who all the sudden becomes Mr. Rodgers--then it raises some compelling questions as just how to handle the situation.

[Dec31,1999]

Re 12: Your words haunt me and ring true.

Nonetheless, they will attack us regardless, so it's pointless not to give it our best shot. We will win, but it ain't gonna be pretty.

We all know what their holy book says.