Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jcky who wrote (61069)	12/11/2002 11:55:07 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

It would have been well within the Iraqi capability to arm the Scuds with either chemical or biologic weapons to disrupt either the Americans, Israelis, or Saudis. This did not occur. During the air campaign alone, yes. But we cannot know (at least without finding a witness) if Saddam gave the orders for chemical warheads when the Americans invaded. Arming chemical weapons must be done by trained technicians shortly before they are fired, from what I have read. We may simply have overrun the Iraqi positions before the munitions could be armed. That's just one possible interpretation. Arguably, the point can also be made the war hawks are leaning over backwards to give Saddam the worst of all possible interpretation of events in order to sell a war. The authors are trying to read into the mind of a man, not an exact science. No clear answers here No matter how you slice it, considering the results of Saddam's little adventures (and the article you cited omitted some of them, like the attempt to reinvade Kuwait in 1994), you can hardly avoid the conclusion that Saddam is prone to aggression and wild miscalculation.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next