What if Saddam did have WMDs?

[TheFarseer]

what if he did have stock piles of Nerve Gas and Anthrax and this and that and every other thing and they were right where the CIA said they were?

on edit - sorry this isn't as topical as it would have been two years ago, but I was just having this discussion with someone, thus my curiosity.

[sniffa]

1. what if i had 2 penises

wouLd i get twice the action?

[da_chimperor]

3. You would have a well-paying career in the adult film industry.

:P

[Zenlitened]

2. He didn't. So what's the point of hypotheticals now?

:shrug:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. And this is relevant how? 1,500 dead Americans and tens of thouands

of Iraqis killed and injured seems to be the more relevant point these days.

[sniffa]

7. but what if the WMD's were moved to syria?

huh? huh? huh?

[bullimiami]

5. What if Bush DID tell the truth.

His ass would be in perma-jail along with a good number of his buddies.

[Caution]

6. Even with so-called WMDs

He would still have been no threat whatsoever to the United States. Delivery of the agents above is not really worth the trouble and expense of stockpiling them.

Now if he had had nuclear weapons (North Korea) and was developing capability to deliver them (Nodong missile) then maybe action would have been justified. As it was he had oil.

[da_chimperor]

8. If your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

I'd still be against the war, but if he actually did have WMD other countries may have been more supportive of US action.

[whistle]

9. But he didn't, the CIA made it up, the Bush administration...

...knew that Saddam was not a threat from WMDs. George Bush and his whole cabinet lied to the American people and the rest of the world and Bush went to war to settle a personal grudge against a man he never met face-to-face, spent $360billion, killed over 100,000 Iraqi women, children and elderly, spent 1,530 American lives killed in action, another 6,000 who died from severe wounds, severely disabled 11,000 other American military, displaced countless American families through financial hardships and stresses, and for what?

Your poll is out of line considering the realities we as Americans must now face by this corrupt and insane president.

[TheFarseer]

12. I was against the war back when I thought he DID have WMDs

however, the relevance is if bush really did think he had WMDs(which I do not believe, but could never hope to prove) then I can at least see *some* reason for all of this.

The big distinction for some people is, was GW lieing or was he merely wrong? To me, that's the difference between GW being incredibly stupid and being incredibly evil.

[whistle]

17. Bush lied, he was guaranteed the election by the neo-conservatives

...and the ultra right wing in the country to carry forward PNAC. Everything following his 2000 theft of the presidency has been window dressing for the real agenda, a fascist theocracy dominionist leadership in the U.S. ruling the new world order!

[kenny blankenship]

19. What if you make wild accusations

that lead to war, and you call for war, and you don't care to find out if your "information" used to start the war has the slightest claim to credibility?

I haven't heard of any accusation against Hussein's government that was omitted by Bush and Cheney because it was just too "out there" beyond credibility. It turns out that nearly all of them were--and of the war-justifying ones, 100% of them were false. Apparently if they could find someone somewhere to say Hussein was doing something forbidden under UN resolutions, or plotting to attack our country, they rushed to a microphone to repeat it. It didn't matter how biased the source or how interested in removing Hussein the source might be or how uncorroborated the accusation, they announced it like it was the Gospel Truth. The mainstream media was always willing to present their lies as insight and as tidbits of "intelligence" which were above question.

when someone speaks irresponsibly and with total disregard for truth in order to push people to do what they want, aren't they just as guilty as someone else who knowingly lies and makes up stories?

To my mind it makes no difference whether Bush knew he was lying or didn't care that he might be repeating lies, and soliciting these lies, made up by others; either way he's guilty of deliberately inciting the country to an illegal war and mass murder. Either way the pathology is Hitlerian in its disdain for truth and lust for bloodshed.

[spanone]

10. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda don't matter. That point is moot.

He didn't have WMDs period.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Even with the WMDs there is no proof that Saddam had any

designs on his neighbors, let alone the US. He never attacked another country without getting the tacit approval of the US.

He was not a threat.

Besides, the CIA said he didn't have the weapons. Not until the OSP fabricated the information, which was then passed to Tenet, bypassing the CIA intelligence network.

[x_y_no]

13. This is very mush an "on balace" thing ...

It seems to me we pretyy successfully contained Saddam for a lot of years, and were still doing so. The existance of chemical or even some kinds of biological weapons doesn't seem to change that equation in so far as we still could have pursued further inspections and international pressure.

OTOH, if there were serious indication of his intent to use a biological weapon in an attack (or give biological weapons to some terrorist organization) or if there were strong evidence that he was very close to acquiring nuclear weapons, then invasion would have been justified.


But we now know that - far from having strong evidence of any of this - they hyped a bunch of weak and contradictory stuff in order to justify what they wanted to do.

[TexasLawyer]

14. "Cakewalk"

If Saddam actually did have WMDs then we may not have attacked Iraq at all. Look how we've left North Korea alone!

The neo-cons thought Iraq would be "a cake-walk" for good reason. Iraq had been militarily trounced a decade earlier and since then had been subsisting under harsh economic sanctions. The US had it on good authority from people like Scott Ritter that Iraqi nuclear capabilities were nil.

WMDs had very little to do with this war. Neither did "spreading democracy and liberty". Taking over Iraq had been a plan by the Bush folk since the earliest days of the administration. Even before that, the war was a dream of the PNAC.

The war is really about oil, Israel, and US world hegemony.

[Mass]

15. The way they went to war would still have been non justifiable

Weapons inspectors would have found them if left enough time.

They could have secured the UN approval if they had proofs.

They should have prepared better for the "afterwar" before they went to war. (Sorry for afterwar, I could not think to something else, but it is weird to call afterwar a period where more US soldiers were killed than during the war itself).

Anyway, the point is that the WMDs were not there and ,even in the case they really believed they were there, they still could not prove it.

[formernaderite]

16. I happen to think that Saddam probably did have some WMD's...

and I still think the war was completely unjustified. Syria, Iran, Pakistan etc. all have WMD's in some form...I don't want a war with them either.

[cestpaspossible]

18. What if the moon really were made of green cheese?

Would the Apollo program have been justified in that case?