> It always seems to me that if Iraq didn't have any WMD all they had to do
> was
> to fall over backwards to help the WMD UN inspectors and that way they'd
> have
> been no war.
> So the war happened because Iraq refused to let a UN inspection team look
> for
> something they didn't have?
A little more complex than that, Daniel. The simple statement is that, if
they had
allowed the weapons inspections to reveal that they were not in the process
of
developing nuclear capabilities, they would not have had a war with the USA.
They would, however, inevitably had a war with one of their neghbors.
Go back before the first Gulf War. Sadaam was trying to expand hi borders at
the expense of his neighbors in every direction. When he felt the time was
right,
he attempted to present the world with a fait accompli by taking over
Kuwait.
He mis-judged the reactions and got a severe defeat at the hands of the
elder
Bush. At that point he was essentially defenseless and at the mercy of the
nations
surrounding him, none of which would have to look hard for an excuse to
attack. The only defense he could come up with was to pretend that he had
weapons of mass destruction. The evidence looked convincing because he
was leaking it. He tried to walk the tightrope of convincing his neighbors
that
he had the means of defending himself without convincing the USA that he
was on the verge of nuclear capability. If the weapons inspectors found
nothing, he would be attacked by one or more ofthe surrounding nations. If
they found something, he would be attacked by the USA. Only so long you
can succeed at that game. I just wish that people would move away from
the euphemism of WMD when they really mean nuclear capability. Mustard
gas qualifies as a WMD, but the stores of that which they found don't
seem to count?
David Lieb
|