Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but the main point I was trying to make was that we all know Iraq had WMD. The issue people seem to have (including me, who actually supported the invasion initially!!) was the complete rubbish that Bush and Blair spouted about "current" (or contemporaenous if you will) programs and imminent threats to the US and UK safety.
|
Well, it depends by what you mean by "had". Yes, we all knew he had them prior to 1991. We all know that under the terms of the cease-fire and UN resolutions, he was required to destroy existing stockpiles after the war. We went in during 2004, 13 years AFTER the original cease-fire said he would destroy his existing stockpiles, and there were, indeed, still stockpiles there. Why hadn't they been destroyed in those intervening 13 years, and how long should we have waited for him to comply with the 1991 ceasefire?
Were they post 1991 production? Nope. At least not that we have found. Were there still chemical weapons stockpiles that posed a danger? According to that report, yes, there were. "Under UN seal" means that if he wanted to access them, all he would have had to do is snip the plastic or metal sealing device, which is reasonably similar to a quik-cuff. One guy with a pair of pliers or tin snips could have done it. They haven't gone into the bunkers because apparently their MOPP suits wouldn't "cut it" from a safety perspective. If Chemical Warfare protective gear wouldn't "cut it" to protect our people from the contents of the bunker, the stuff must be pretty bloody dangerous, yes? Now imagine the contents of that bunker in the hands of the nutjob du jure who doesn't care if he dies as long as he takes others with him. Does that sound like something you'd want going on in your neighborhood?