Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Think about it: if Iraq had them, and doesn't now, why on earth didn't Saddam provide the *evidence* he should have (and could have)? He could have ended the sanctions, and stayed in power. Instead, he delayed the whole process indefinately, and never really cooperated with the UN inspections. Why?
|
You are committing a logical fallacy. It does not hold trure to claim that
If A exists then B will occur. Since B did not occur then A must not exist.
Besides that here are some possible reasons as to "why" Saddam didn't provide the evidence you think he could and should have shown:
1) Saddam was the dictator of a sovereign nation. He had an image to uphold. One element of his power (based upon fear) relied upon opposing "Western" demands.
2) As the leader of a sovereign nation, Saddam may not have felt a foreign entity had a *right* to demand inspections. (I agree with this point, btw)
3) The sanctions weren't damaging him--they adversely affected the people. Regardless of whether he actually cared about the people he was ruling or, more acurately, becoming wealthy at their expense the negative consequences actually had the positive effect (from a dictator's point of view, anyway) of galvanizing his population's and world opposition to U.S./U.N. foreign policies/demands.