I guess that would mean he had them, but he got rid of them. If that is true, why didn't he make a show about getting rid of them, and end the sanctions against him? Is he the kind of guy to have a weapon, and get rid of it without getting anything in return?
2007-09-26 07:37:29 · 9 answers · asked by kimmyisahotbabe 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He used them during the Iran/Iraq war and he used them against his own people. He had them before we invaded Iraq too. Problem is that NY Times kept talking about us going into Iraq and that delayed our entry due to battle plans being compromised. So by the time we got to Iraq Saddam had enough time to ship his weapons out of the country. He had a lot of leaders on a payroll and he has a lot of countries surrounding him more than happy to take his WMDs. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine to name a few. Plus we found over 500 cases of Saryn gas within the past year.
2007-09-26 07:43:42 · answer #1 · answered by Fallen 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Apparently he was that kind of guy. Or are you saying that the weapons are still there somewhere, but we just have somehow managed not to find them? Saddam was probably the type of guy who would have been annoyed at the sanctions and the UN for trying to enforce them, but he went along with them grudgingly. He made things difficult for the inspectors when they searched before we invaded, but by the accounts of the inspectors, he did give them the access they needed, and they found nothing. Thus, when he said he was in compliance, he was telling the truth. But why would he have needed to make a big show of it, if the inspectors verified that he had done what he was supposed to have done? Getting rid of the weapons wouldn't have automatically ended the sanctions.
2007-09-26 14:44:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. He did have them, but got rid of them or let them degrade and fall apart without keeping them up to snuff.
Why didn't he make a show about getting rid of them? Several reasons:
1) He was hated within his own nations, and was a brutal, paranoid and ruthless minority ruler. Anything that made him less dangerous to factions that might depose him put him at greater risk from within.
2) He fought a long and ugly war with Iran in the 80s to a stalemate, even with extensive US assistance. Between the Shia majority within his nations and a militarily strong or stronger neighbor who sympathized with that same Shia majority, he needed the threat of WMDs as a deterrent against his enemies from without.
3) He felt, at least partially correctly, that the threat of WMDs were a key factor in the US not marching straight into Bahgdad in the first Gulf War. With his army in ruins, and George Bush (the first) calling for people to overthrow him, he probably felt he needed that deterrent against the US.
As far as an advatage to getting rid of them, any evidence that he was rebuilding his WMD capacity would result in harsh military action.
It was definitely to his advantage not to get caught with them.
So he played a game of chicken - pretending that he MIGHT have weapons to keep his enemies wary and at bay, but believing that, since he didn't actually have them, no one would be stupid enough to invade again without actual evidence.
Even Bush's hand-picked stooges who pubicly declared that they would definitely find the evidence of WMDs all had to admit, in the end that the programs and weapons did not exist.
Please note, not admitting that they couldn't find them, or that they might have been moved, but that they did not exist.
David Kay, Charles Dulfer ended up agreeing, completely, with the much maligned Hans Blix in the end.
2007-09-26 14:55:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chemical weapons that Saddam had.......WE GAVE HIM!!!!! ( Or sold him rather)!
During the 8 year Iran/Iraq war!!!
None of the chemical weapons found in Iraq were a surprise. Our government knew they would find them.
The U.S. government was speculating on Saddam developing and expanding a nuclear weapons program.
Nearly every nation on the planet has some form of biological or chemical weapons. No surprise there!
2007-09-26 14:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's pretty well known that he used Chemical weapons as one of his relatives/henchman got the nickname "Chemical Ali" for using it on the Kurds. It is surmised that he got rid of them but wouldn't admit to it because he felt other countries would attack if they knew he lacked the weaponry.
2007-09-26 14:50:41 · answer #5 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Kurds he murdered.
Or least have a look at their graves.
I CR 13;8a
No doubt a hell of a lot of them are in Syria.
Look out Damascus, you're next.
2007-09-26 20:10:17 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He used them in the Iraq/Iran War.
2007-09-26 14:43:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They went to Syria
2007-09-26 14:40:50 · answer #8 · answered by Private Deek 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO.
2007-09-26 14:43:43 · answer #9 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋