Undeniable proof of nuclear warhead stockpiles and actual nuclear tests that have harmed the enviorment and taken lives was available to Congress today. Of course this information was regarding France. The Bush intelligence team is still keeping the proof regarding Saddam under wraps since the major thrust of our suspicions is based on CIA interpretations of Nostrodamus. But seriously some Congressmen were briefed today about Saddam's weapon capabilitues but public information is still not available. Congress is likely to vote for another Gulf War. Over 150 Democratic congressmen voted against the 1st Gulf War. You remember the war over phoney incubator theft? You remember the war where US troops exploded the stockpile of Iraqi chemical and bio weapons thus exposing many US troops to contamination but was brushed under the rug as a psychogical Gulf War "syndrome". You remember it was that war that bin Laden claimed that the infidel US servicemen defiled the holy land of Mecca and in turn conducts a war against the US today. Remember how Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia with exactly 2 scud missles that landed in a US military base? No I do not think most Congressmen remember very much. Except that we won the war. What did we win? Good will? Some exploded oil wells? Exactly how appreciative is Kuait today?
Don H, I'm sure that Bushy will "come up" with some photos proving that Iraq has nuclear weapons. And I'm just as sure that the photos will be as genuine as the Osama Bin Laden-CIA videotape. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
IF and or when we attack Iraq, I predict one of two scenarios. 1. Nuclear weapons will be found whether they are Saddam's or not. 2. If a nuke should happen to go off , each side will claim it belonged to the other.
As an artist I knew the Usama video the US discovered was not him by simply noticing the fat short nose was not even close to Osama's thin 4 inch long nose. Even if you distort the image one does not get Osamas face.
One small question: Why from the Gulf war was Saddam left in power in the first place? I can guess it would be fear of such weapons, but why decide now what they should have done then.
Basically, the weapons don't have anything to with it. If bombs were the real issue, then there are lots of places where they are an issue. (Naturally, Israel's 200 bombs don't seem to matter to the US.) I think the US was hoping that sanctions and so forth would undermine Saddam and he'd fall from power without more overt moves on the part of the US. After all, as Iraq is the second largest proven source of oil and natural gas, a bit of destabilization in the mid-east would suit the US nicely if they were the power to step into the void and "save" the situation. The US is in deep financial doo doo and needs to have some sort of sure influence over oil supplies. (And let's not forget that it was made quite clear to Iraq that sanctions would remain in place even if they allowed the weapons inspectors in.) But that hasn't happened; Saddam's authority hasn't weakened. So, 500,000 Iraqi deaths later, as a result of sanctions, they want to get rid of him for mass destruction and potential death and disaster, et al.
Basically, the weapons don't have anything to with it. If bombs were the real issue, then there are lots of places where they are an issue. (Naturally, Israel's 200 bombs don't seem to matter to the US.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder,if it could be that there is not much chance of them giving the bombs to Arabs. Or do you think they would??? Arabs like Osama Bin Laden I meen.
Do you mean would Saddam Hussein give the bombs to the Arabs like bin Laden? If so, no I don't think there would be any chance of that. Why would he? Besides, to "give the bombs" would be an enormous task that would hardly go unnoticed by spy satellites or the man on the street, for that matter. People trade technological know-how instead, and a bit of equipment here and a bit of equipment there, and I'm quite sure anyone who wanted their own bomb and had the cash could find what they need from numerous sources. And ones with fewer suspicious eyes on them. (And don't forget that nuclear bombs aren't the terrorist tool of choice. Why bother when you can stuff a van full of explosives and park it somewhere crowded.)
We left Saddam in power for two main reasons: 1) Chemical and bio weapon stores were buried in massive trenches south and around Baghdad proper. When the troops would come to attack the city, the trenches would be set ablaze killing a lot of coalition soliders. 2) We were under UN mandate, which I have problems with. But a mandate is a mandate and the deal was to liberate Kuwait, not kill Saddam. We said to the Arab allies, in particular, that we'd cage the tiger but not kill 'em. Was it a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Hindsight is 20/20.
Thanks for the reminder of the "official version". What about the question in hand: the premise for war possibly being nuclear weapons capability? The point of such a war?
