admice

that the WMD Iraq had were destroyed. Got to thinking why, since we know they had them. We gave them to them. Realized: Iraq knows US admin wants a government in Iraq that they can control/influence (because of the oil). If they turn over their WMD, they have no way to resist the US admin giving support (weapons, money) to a faction the US admin wants heading Iraq.

If they do disarm, then US gov can still set up thier own puppet gov. lose/lose situation.

Any thoughts?
admice

theyeti

Saddam's elite Republican Guard, as well as the rest of his loyal conventional forces, are plenty powerful enough to put down any armed insurrection originating in Iraq, unless the US intervenes directly. Saddam doesn't need chemical or biological weapons to put a revolt down, just as he didn't need them to squash the revolt after the first Gulf War. Chemical and biological weapons are of limited military use; the CIA could just supply the rebels with gas masks, vaccines, and the necessary training if that was all that stood in their way of overthrowing Saddam. But gas masks won't stop bullets, tanks, or helicopters, which are of far greater concern to a would-be rebel.

theyeti

leonarde

Yes, I have a thought!We certainly did NOT give them VX gas or mustard
gas since we stopped producing them after signing
a 1972 Geneva Convention agreement on (offensive)
chemical weapons. What "we" gave them was probably
chemical precursors which have dual use: military
and non-military. "We" gave them no nuclear weapons (which is why they have been working so hard on developing them: in violation of UN resolutions). "We" gave them no biological weapons
either.
The obvious reason why they account for none of this stuff is that they still have it and more...

Aerion

Biological and chemical weapons are really lousy to use to stop an invading army. If used inside your own borders, they would have a nasty habit of killing your own people as well as the invaders. Biological weapons in particular are not every effective in the dry desert climate. Bacteria and virii need a moist environment to survive. So it is logical to assume that Saddam only want's these types of weapons to intimidate his people and other countries around the world.

admice

leonarde:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1/1022iraq.htm

quote:

Iraq purchased eight strains of anthrax from a U.S. company and admitted turning them into weapons.

David Kelly, a former British Foreign Office expert who led 37 UN biological weapons inspections of Iraq in the '90s, said the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection company admitted selling the anthrax strains to Saddam Hussein's government in 1985.

The company confirmed to the UN that it sold the anthrax to Iraq through a mail order, Kelly said in a telephone interview from London. Anthrax is now being sent through the mail in a series of terrorist attacks, though U.S. investigators have not yet linked these to any group.

In 1985, there were no U.S. sanctions against Iraq, which was an American ally at the time in Baghdad's war against Iran.

I have read more on this. will try to find links, but you're right that WMD aren't necessary for Iraqi govt to repel a US sponsored coup. So...why isn't Hussein cooperating?

Thieving Magpie

This assumes that 'US admin wants a government in Iraq that they can control/influence' which may not be the case at all. And without this assumption, your argument falls flat, so would you care to back this up?

admice

Theiving Magpie said:

The Bush admin has said more than once it wants regime change. If you want direct quotes, I'll look em up

Mr. Superbad

I think history has proven that Saddam could care less about killing his own people. It would also slow down any military advance because they'd have to suit up in protective gear. He could effectively make whatever town he wanted a hellhole depending on what he uses.

I think Saddam is more interested in using them to provoke Israel into a fight, so that the rest of the middle east would align with him against the US and Israel. Probably the reason for the guided planes designed to carry chemical or biological weapons. I don't think it would work, but he may think so.

Either that or he could use his WMD to supply terrorists and send them out around the globe. He could then warn that if someone attacks they will be set off. I imagine support for a war with Iraq would diminish after a threat like that, although it would prove our case that he's a dangerous nut that should be taken out. If he ever gets sanctions lifted, he could rebuild his army and try and attack neighboring countries using similar threats in order to dissuade nations from stopping him.

But I'm guessing the reason he hasn't given up WMD is because the UN hasn't really done anything about it over the past 12 years. If he gave them up after the Gulf War and didn't try and rebuild them, we would probably gladly lift sanctions and trade with him, but he would have to give up his dreams of conquering the middle east and whatnot.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
I think history has proven that Saddam could care less about killing his own people. It would also slow down any military advance because they'd have to suit up in protective gear. He could effectively make whatever town he wanted a hellhole depending on what he uses.

Agreed--they serve more as a delaying tactic than a serious threat to our troops.

I think Saddam is more interested in using them to provoke Israel into a fight, so that the rest of the middle east would align with him against the US and Israel. Probably the reason for the guided planes designed to carry chemical or biological weapons. I don't think it would work, but he may think so.

However, if he succeeds Israel's reply should be easy to predict. Dodging our bombs is one thing, dodging Israeli nuclear ballistic missiles is quite another.

Either that or he could use his WMD to supply terrorists and send them out around the globe. He could then warn that if someone attacks they will be set off. I imagine support for a war with Iraq would diminish after a threat like that, although it would prove our case that he's a dangerous nut that should be taken out. If he ever gets sanctions lifted, he could rebuild his army and try and attack neighboring countries using similar threats in order to dissuade nations from stopping him.

This is the real threat he poses. Send out a bunch of the stuff and then resume his campaign to gobble up the gulf. If we try to intervene there's not really anything we could do to stop him from hitting our cities.

But I'm guessing the reason he hasn't given up WMD is because the UN hasn't really done anything about it over the past 12 years. If he gave them up after the Gulf War and didn't try and rebuild them, we would probably gladly lift sanctions and trade with him, but he would have to give up his dreams of conquering the middle east and whatnot.

Yeah, people complain about us being such a warmonger but in reality we are too *SLOW* on the trigger. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to comply after Desert Storm we should have resumed the offensive.

Any parenting book will tell you that to keep threatening and threatening but not punishing is not the way to raise a child. Yet we seem determined to do it as a nation.

Thieving Magpie

Oh, I know the Bush admin wants a regime change.. but that does not mean that they want one that they can explicitely control/influence to any degree that they do not over other countries.