[Photo Galleries ][Polls Discussion ]
Posted by Mogli on April 07, 2003 at 19:58:16:
In Reply to: Re: Ediot posted by Stars and Stripes on April 07, 2003 at 19:01:03:
Nobody was in doubt the USA could beat the Iraqis Ed - whether you are for or against the war that was a given. Remember Iraq was not even allowed to use aircraft. Plus the USA had carried out a continuous bombing campaign over 60% or more of Iraq over for the past 12 years. They obviously had no missiles with a range over 100km - they didn't use them against the world's mightiest army. They lobbed a few short range jobs in Kuwait City but not much else. Perhaps they were saving them up for when the Irish army descended upon them with something really scary.
If you believe everything that 'Rumstud' and Rupert Murdoch tell you about WMD are more naive than most people of your age. Just think it out for a moment.
This war is predicated on finding WMD. Showing old dusty barrels on TV is not very convincing to put it mildly when you think about the logic of having weapons in the first place. They are for use in a war. And what more serious war could you imagine when the USA decides to unleash everything its got against you?
If you were in his situation would you say - "Oh I am too gentlemanly to use that anthrax I bought from Rumstead back in 1989. That wouldn't be fair on my former colleagues who helped me so much in the Iran war. I couldn't possibly wage war like that especially when GW Bush has such nice clinical weapons of mass destruction. And oh! I love the way those cluster bombs rip through the children. I will just keep those weapons for some future war."
Doesn't sound right does it? Unless he unleashes them in Baghdad in the next day or so it is going to be very hard to get people to believe that Iraq had any viable chemical or biological weapons left.
Would it not be logical that Saddam Hussein would use such weapons when faced with his final hours. Even he must have believed that was his last few weeks as president, if not his last few weeks alive. How does Rumstud explain the fact that so far Iraq has not used chemical or biological weapons? If the Iraqi army had been routed out of it in just a day or so - as of course we were led to believe would happen - you could have said they didn't get the opportunity to us them. But this is 19 days of continuous war with thousands of bombs dropped causing mass destruction all over Iraq. If I were SH I certainly would have used everything in the arsenal to fight back.
So what's the explanation?
Maybe they did disarm and Hans Blix was actually extremely effective in doing his job.