<If even the anti-war movement believed that Saddam had weapons, if even France argued merely that Saddam's programs had been "contained", tell me who was claiming that Saddam had no WMDs? Who? >
Nadine, there is what I call the Formula Shell effect. <anyone who disagreed was just not listened to > That's a common trait of dominant people. Dictators are commonly amazed when the people who love them string them up.
For a start, I didn't think there were WMDs and neither did my brother. He was rabidly anti-war and annoyed that I thought it a reasonable idea for the USA alone, or the UN collectively, but preferably the NUN, taking over Iraq from Saddam, and Kuwait, and fixing them up.
So, that's two people for a start. I thought it was hilarious when the cry went up "Gas! Gas! Gas!"
I didn't have inspection procedures in place, but there was sufficient background information to make me think it very unlikely that Saddam had any significant weapons available. I have thought it quite possible that Al Qaeda could get hold of a noocular bomb and have ranted quite a few times about the possibility of a noocular bomb being imported buried in a cargo of opium as the disguise, buried in a cargo of dates or something as the front. The bribed customs guys would let the opium in, but not a noocular bomb.
Of course I wasn't certain, but it really seemed very unlikely that Saddam had anything worthwhile and hence his 11th hour invitation for the CIA and so on to come in and inspect what they liked. I was surprised he didn't just surrender sovereign power to the UN as a way of keeping the USA out. I suppose he simply didn't think of it and such an idea would be incompatible with his character, just as it's incompatible for the rulers of the USA to think of a NUN as a significant component of an improved geopolitical world.
Mqurice |
