subterFUSE wrote:Well, I clearly said that I had no proof. It is still my belief that Saddam either hid his weapons, or moved them... and I think Syria might be where they are now.
Besides, you were saying before that Saddam had no WMDs. Well, if this were truly the case... it means that the CIA was wrong (and not just the CIA, but the intelligence services for many other countries).... because they all thought he had them, going back for years. So if they could be wrong about Saddam having them in the first place, then is it possible they could be wrong about moving them?
Bottom line is that Saddam did have WMDs at some point, because he used them. That much is well documented. What is not documented is anything about Saddam dismantling and destroying what weapons he still had. He failed repeatedly to abide by UN Resolutions, and he kicked out inspectors. So we have to assume he still had them... or he had hidden them, or moved them. They did not just disappear into thin air.
Uh, actually he didn't fail to abide by UN resolutions, he squawked and squealed a bit about having to go through with it, and apparently didn't let them inspect his home etc. but the UN was satisfied that he did not have WMD, they felt he complied enough to prove that. It was a major reason why there was that whole anti UN craze in the US right around the start of the war, we painted them out as not doing their job well enough, being pussies etc.
Also, the CIA are far from anti republican, most of them are in fact republicans, but they try to keep non partisan. They repeatedly told GWB and crew that from what evidence they had there was no WMD's in Iraq, that Saddam had complied. What happened was the administration kept coming back and asking if they were absolutely sure of that, and they had to admit it was possible they were wrong. What the administration did with that information was to publicly say that the CIA were convinced there was a possibility etc.. The CIA was then screwed, no way to disavow what GWB said without looking like assholes themselves....
The CIA is not, and in principal should not be a public, or political organization at all, they would not attempt in any way to make any standing president look bad, it's far from the purpose of the organization.
GWB made them look terrible, with no fault of their own, although he did admit to being wrong about WMD's. Considering that, it's funny that anybody would argue that it was a trick on Saddam's part. He's a vain sonofabitch, but he's not stupid. Whether or not he had WMD's in the past, he knew that destroying them, and playing stubborn with the USA etc. would make him look better in the eyes of history. Using WMD weapons against a military with the kind of equipment we have is absolutely retarded, and he didn't stay in power for as long as he did by being stupid.
Anyway, I've kept out of this mostly because I don't feel that people are operating from a perspective of rational thinking. You cannot invade a nation on a possibility, it simply doesn't matter what you're intentions are, you always look like an asshole, and America looks like an asshole right now.
Riddle me this: the Bathist party was composed entirely of Sunnis, with about 20% of the population being Sunni, how do you ever see a democracy working?
As Americans we assume that democracy is the only way, but if the majority are dead set on oppressing the minority, (Yugoslavia after becoming a democracy comes to mind), then it's quite possible that short of splitting the country apart, another system might be better?
This in no way implies that the Bathists had the right idea, just that we don't either, we don't know what's best for Iraq, and we think we do, so we are an oppressor, simple really.
Also, do you really think it's a democracy when American companies come in to rebuild, move oil etc.? Does democracy imply that we get all the contracts? or is that our bill for invading?
Good grief.
