Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
How are these "two old, dead weapons" *not* prove that Saddam had WMDs? It's not a gray scale thing we're talking about, it's an Either-Or situation: either he had them, or he had none. IF these weapons are shown to belong to the Saddam-era Iraqi army, it proves that he did have WMDs.
|
Well, OK. If you wanna get technical, sarin has a shelf life of 10 years. These things were more than twice that old (assuming indeed that 2 (only 2) of them had sarin in the warheads). They therefore would not have worked. For a weapon to be a weapon of mass destruction it has to be capable of. . well. . causing mass destruction. These things were capable of denting whatever they fell on, and that's about it.
So no, it doesn't at all prove that he had WMD's at the time we claimed he had them unlawfully. It certainly (as you noted) doesn't prove what Bush & Co. led us to believe - that the country was crawling with the things. A key phrase used in the buildup to war was "STOCKPILES" of WMD's. 2 busted missiles does not a stockpile make.
Now, how do I know that there AREN'T stockpiles? Simple. I don't think the U.S. military is so inept as to be unable to find jillions of WMD's if the country really had them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hwed
That was never the concern. Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US directly.
|
Really? That's not what Bush said. He said Saddam had WMD's and if we didn't go in and get them he would use them against us. Never mind the fact that Iraq's best missile couldn't even fly 1000 miles, much less cross an entire ocean to hit us even if he did have stockpiles of WMD's, which he obviously did not.