Iraq Had No WMD

[observer]

The means to "threaten" us in the UK - DOH.  As far as using them on the Kurds is concerned, he was merely following the example set by the RAF in the 20's. I'm certainly not going to defend Saddam, but he was a tyrant and a dictator, like many others in the M/East, that served a purpose in the cynical game of chess called international politics. He was a counter balance to the rise of Islamic Fundementalism in Iran, fought a proxy war against them on behalf of the West, and compared to what's now happening, provided a degree of stability in the Region. His problem was, he stopped saying "how high", when the Yanks said "jump".

[Lt Kije]

I don't have a problem with your last post Obs, its about right, The problem Saddam had with the Americans is he stopped selling his oil in Dollars 

[observer]

Which is why we went to war - with Bush, it seems things were no longer just buisiness, but personal.

[Cleopatra]

There were some very dangerous men in politics - in the west just as in the east! The us and the uk have done precious little to promote world peace and stability, indeed they have created several wars between them.

[observer]

That's the nature of super-powers and global politics.

[inky pete]

Well clearly Saddam didn't use them, nor had the means to threaten us with them. Seems the depleted uranium that was thrown around the battlefield, damaging our service personel, was from our own weapons systems.

 

Sadaam had chemical WMD's and was actively working on developing nuclear ones.

 

He had enhanced Scud missiles with which he could hit targets as far away as Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the Straits of Hormuz. Provoking a nuclear response from Israel, or closing the Straits of Hormuz would most definitely have threatened us!

 

He was working on a supergun project which would have been capable of firing a rocket assisted shell into orbit - from where it could have been brought down on a target ANYWHERE on the planet.

 

He had been giving the UN weapons inspectors the run around for years.

 

And he'd demonstrated his willingness to use WMD's on numerous occasions.

 

He was a serious threat. He had to be removed and his weapons programmes destroyed.

[observer]

"Threat" to whom?

[inky pete]

To anyone either directly in range of his weapons (which would have been anyone anywhere on the planet if he'd got his supergun).

 

Or, more immediately, to anyone who lives in an economy which is reliant on oil from any of the Gulf states.

[observer]

Ah well; your last sentence arrives at a shared common conclusion then !  As for the range of his scuds, he did launch some at Israel, which were HE; every effort was made by the Yanks to restrain the Israelis from retaliation, on account of fears that the US/UK Coalition with Arab Nations would break up. Had this not succeded, I think perhaps we would have seen a few nuclear explosions, but not ones delivered by Saddam !

[inky pete]

Precisely!

 

Sadaam's attacks on Tel Aviv were designed and very carefully balanced to get the Israeli's to retaliate - but only using conventional weapons. He knew that if he had used his WMD's (which I notice you're no longer disputing he had) against Israel then he would have immediately disappeared in a big flash of light and a mushroom cloud.

 

By using conventional (and small at that!) warheads on his Scuds he wanted to provoke the Israeli airforce into raids to find his lauchers in Northern Iraq. Israeli involvement would, as you say, have destabilised the Coalition - probably fatally - and would have bought him the time he wanted to finish building his nukes and his supergun.

 

Once he could put nukes in orbit, he could have brought them down on any city in the world he chose.

[observer]

Think your believing the propoganda put out at the time by Bush/Bliar - the UN inspectors have concluded before and since the war that there were no viable stocks or production capabilties of WMDs; I'm sure in desperation he'd have used them. What this invasion has taught third world countries, is that to be safe from Western "regime change", it is actually advisable to have WMDs (especially nukes). What it also says about Western hypocracy on the issue of nuclear proliferation is also interesting; IE, it's OK for the Israelis (Indians & Pakistanis) to have them, but not Iraq then or Iran now.

[Lt Kije]

The West did not want India or Pakistan to have them Obs, they made them anyway.

[observer]

But "the West" didn't threaten Israel, India or Pakistan with economic sanctions, endless inspections or finally a military invasion. Whilst I don't support nuclear proliferation, I'm aftaid the genie is out of the bottle and seen by these countries as a deterent to invasion and regime change by the US.

[Lt Kije]

The West put limited sanctions on India and Pakistan Obs, As to Israel they have not actually detonated a bomb, so we can't be sure they have one, we just assume.

[observer]

"limited"?  "assumed"? Seems Iraq qualified for both - resulting in an invasion.

[Lt Kije]

So the West did threaten India and Pakistan, Are you forgetting Iraq had oil

[observer]

Ooops forgot Kije, that India and Pakistan were our allies and possibly too big to mess with anyway.

[Lt Kije]

Pakistan was an Allie, India bought most of it weapons from the Russians

[observer]

India was a Soviet ally during the cold war, mainly due to the fact that Pakistan was allied to the Yanks. Since the end of the cold war both can be viewed as under US influence, and in any event I think India is just too big to invade.

[Lt Kije]

Funny how the Soviets ended up with the Worlds biggest democracy as their Allie, and the West ended up with a failing State

[observer]

It's called international politics Kije - a cynical game of chess at best !