SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Alan Smithee who wrote (76170)10/9/2004 11:11:51 PM
From: Sig  Read Replies (1) of 793763
 
<<<In light of the Dueffler report, I have this question. Why was Saddam so uncooperative about inspections? He acted like he had something to hide. His actions let a number of people to conclude that he indeed had WMD. If he did not, why didn't he just open the country up, with free access to the inspectors. Once they'd validated that he had no WMD, the political pressure would have been great to end sanctions and he could have proceeded with his plans to reacquire WMD.>>

I think Saddam pretended to have WMD's as a deterent.

If he wanted to prove he did not have them, he could have told the truth about their disposal or faked the paperwork
to show what was done with them.

The only real threats to Saddam I can vision are the USA ( since he had bought off the other countries) or the Kurds or Shiite's in Iraq.

If the UN failed to protect him, which is the way it turned out, then the US would have to think very seriously about casualties to be suffered by attacking a Nation armed with WMD's.

Saddam had a bad year. He should not have interfered with Hans Blix inspectors,and the US applied the serious consequences approved by the UN resolutions despite France's
promised objection.

So the US was prepared to meet up with WMD's on the way to Baghdad. But what if Saddam had some nuclear stuff?

That was not very likely because of the inspections, but there was no guarantee. And it would explain why the shock and awe treatment was applied to take out military installations as soon as possible.

But let us assume that Saddam had just one little nuke, and was planning to build 5 per year.

Should he have been stopped immediately or after another 6 months of UN inspections, when he would have three. ?

Sig






Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News