Quote:
|
Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile 1. WMDs!!! Oh my god!!! The sky is falling!!! Our brilliant leader gets up there and says (and I quote), "Iraq represents a grave and gathering danger" to the U.S. and western interests. An "imminent threat" (without methods of delivery or WMD warheads, but that's not important, right? We'll just make it up in some "intelligence" reports to justify our actions). Still nothing found to date except some overlooked, mostly inert artillery shells the Iraqi army commanders probably didn't even realize they still had. No mobile anthrax labs. No nuclear reactors. No plutonium bombs. Nothin'. A few aging Soviet-era anti-aircraft radar batteries that were used mostly to torment aircraft in the "no fly" zones (and when they flipped 'em on, it usually resulted in a HARM being launched down their throats, so they were largely just a nuisance anyway - it was suicide to actually use them in an aggressive manner). When it started to become clear that there WERE no WMDs (for me it was when U.S. troops closed to within 20 miles of Baghdad - if Iraq had 'em they'd have used 'em then), the Administration switched its focus to:[/b]
|
It was Saddam's own deliberate disinformation campaign that convinced the world he still had WMD. He deliberately lied to everyone- including his own top generals. On the eve of war he called them all together in a meeting and told them straight up- we have no chemical weapons.
No one in the meeting believed him.
So i can hardly fault our own leader for buying into the same highly effective disinformation campaign.
"The truth is a commodity so precious she should at all times be accompanied by a pack of lies."
~Winston Churchill
And the simple fact is that Iraq's chem and bio programs could've been reconsituted in a matter of weeks starting from the moment the UN backed off, for whatever it's worth.
Nope, i do not agree that it was a mistake to get Saddam. The mistake was in the implementation. BIG TIME.