tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post6278308322854016162..comments2024-02-29T12:38:32.191-08:00Comments on MUSINGS ON IRAQ: The U.N. Inspectors Were Right: Iraq Was Not A ThreatJoel Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-25889442498115248092011-08-08T19:49:49.277-07:002011-08-08T19:49:49.277-07:00Reading your post just proved my belief that Bush ...Reading your post just proved my belief that Bush statement that "when we speak about war, we speak about peace," as absolutely false. War, will never be a way out of destruction and towards peace, for destruction cannot begot peace but rather another destruction and war. Pity are those civilians and innocent people and children who were a part of the collateral damage of war. Whew!<br /><br />Thanks for sharing,<br />Cathy@<a href="http://www.pulsestore.com/medical-instruments.aspx" rel="nofollow">blood pressure tester</a>VanityofVanitieshttp://vanityofvanities-thevanityoflife.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-36903625410427449882008-09-13T17:20:00.000-07:002008-09-13T17:20:00.000-07:00That's a hindsight argument however. The war wasn'...That's a hindsight argument however. The war wasn't sold on an argument that sometime in the future Saddam may acquire WMD again, so therefore we need to invade. The argument was that he was just steps away from a nuclear bomb (hence the warning of a "mushroom cloud") that his WMD program was active and larger than before the Gulf War, and that he had ties to terrorists and Al Qaeda in Iraq. The point of this article was to point out that the U.N. and IAEA inspectors went to all the sites the U.S. listed as WMD and nuclear sites and found nothing. That message was hardly heard in the U.S. because the White House flooded the press with reports about how they "knew" where the WMD was and that it was being hidden, but it was simply impossible to hide a program the administration claimed to be larger than before the Gulf War. When it came down to it, I believe the White House said it was all being done with the 7 mobile labs. Just think about that. 7 mobile trailers were suppose to be pumping out more WMD while being moved from place to place, than several large factories did before the Gulf War. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it is true that Saddam did wish to re-start his uncoventional weapons programs, but here's three points. His nuclear program was completely dismantled and his scientists were all doing other work. It would've taken years and years to just get the equipment, and only if sanctions were removed. Two, his WMD program was tactical and battlefield in nature. It would take a large mass of rockets or artillery to use. The U.S. and British had no fly zones over half the country, and even if the sanctions were lessoned or removed, I doubt the U.S. would agree to end the fly overs. Any massing of forces would've been easily detected and destroyed. Third, countries like Iran and Libya had far larger and active WMD and nuclear programs, plus just as many if not more ties to terrorists than Iraq. Check out the 9/11/08 post I made about an analysis of Bush administration decision making after 9/11. There were those set on Iraq before the attack, and after it happened they roled out their plans which were accepted by Bush who shared some of their ideas beforehand. That's the real reason the U.S. went after Iraq IMO.Joel Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09611810110771744360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953410733493889728.post-68815547986332417652008-09-10T04:48:00.000-07:002008-09-10T04:48:00.000-07:00The US strategy wasn't completely crazy in that Ir...The US strategy wasn't completely crazy in that Iraq was hoping to restart a WMD program in the future. Therefore it made a certain amount of sense to stop then when the US could rather than allow Iraq's relations to normalize and then try to start a completely new process. Also, one could say that the US and UK were correct in identifying the problem as Saddam Hussein himself rather than whatever weapons he had or didn't have at a particular time. <BR/>I'm not by any means saying that US/UK strategy was correct, I'm just saying that their decision to topple Hussein no matter what had some grounding in strategic thinking.Antiquated Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08727187247287268014noreply@blogger.com