> More than likely there were never any weapons of mass destruction. Just billions of British tax payers money wasted, AGAIN!
You're an idiot. More than likely someone CURRENTLY in power just doesn't want to be embarassed by having people quote statements they made which they've since denied saying, or that show them to be the lying two-faced hypocrites they really are.
It's quite obvious that all the information -- not just US intel, but also French, British, and Israeli -- suggested that Saddam had them. Further, to stay in power, all Saddam had to do was to show that he did not by LETTING IN INSPECTORS -- which he AGREED UPON in order to stay in power after he invaded Kuwait. In short, he acted exactly as one would expect of someone who had WMDs.
He did not allow inspections to resume, which suggests that he knew he would not be able to prevent inspectors from seeing what he had, and thought that, after Clinton's chickensh** response to Rwanda, that he might be able to bluster the international community into giving in.
As far as "what happened, then?", there are strong suggestions that the Russians helped him move them into syria and elsewhere.
Finally, even IF he did not have them, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector -- himself hardly a fan of the invasion -- has openly admitted that Saddam was all of 90 days from producing Anthrax (or Botulin, I forget) and 180 days from producing the other, as soon as the sanctions were lifted -- and it's quite clear from the fact that he was throwing around literally
billions of dollars of "oil for food" money in the U.N., that those sanctions were pretty time-limited.
So it was time to take him out. . He'd violated the agreements which allowed him to stay in power time and time and time again. At some point, you stop ignoring a thug who's violating parole and actually go out and take him down. That becomes all the more needed when he's actually thumbing his nose at the cops.
And if you think his only target would have been the USA, I direct you to consider the
July 7th attacks.
Saddam would almost certainly have had them by then. Are you actually
stupid enough to think he would not be supplying them to terrorists? The man gave
millions to the families of those behind 9/11, and openly stated that that was the duty of devout Muslims everywhere to attack "the enemies of Islam" -- and that's not just the USA, but ALL of Western Culture.
Does it occur to you that, if Spain hadn't capitulated to the Madrid bombings like little bed-wetting toy poodles and elected a weenie government that terrorist groups wouldn't have thought that the same thing would work in the U.K.?
Geez. "
Winston Churchill is dead. Neville Chamberlain rules U.K.!!!"
You guys
deserve a future of Islamic submission. "Peace at
any price" it is.
Your grandchildren will curse you, and spit at the mention of your names.
And they'll be right.
