OFFLINE

LONDON – An Iraqi man whose testimony the United States used as a key evidence to build a case for war in Iraq says he is proud that he lied about his country developing mobile biological warfare labs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iraq_curveball

So if you have lost a loved one in this war, think about this guy.  BTW...proof that our President was lied to.

OFFLINE

on this edition of the dod and dennis show....lol.


i saw a special on the interrogation of saddam, and the interrogator said that saddam felt that he had to give the appearance of having WMDs, not to us, but to iran. it seemed he was more worried about a rekindling of the iran/iraq war, than he was with us invading.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
on this edition of the dod and dennis show....lol.

With special guest, miles... :-P

i saw a special on the interrogation of saddam, and the interrogator said that saddam felt that he had to give the appearance of having WMDs, not to us, but to iran. it seemed he was more worried about a rekindling of the iran/iraq war, than he was with us invading.

I heard about that at the time. His reasoning was that he though that after over a decade of blustering and sanctions, he felt the west didn't have the cojones to actually do anything about him apart from bring up more meaningless UN resolutions, whereas if Iran knew he didn't have WMDs then they'd definitely try something.

Actually, there's something interesting: if Saddam had said "no, I don't have any WMDs, here take a look", and Iran saw this as weakness and attacked, which side would the US/the West have supported? Or would it have been more public hand-wringing, UN resolutions saying "stop that or we'll say more harsh things about you" while being secretly glad they were taking each other out? Or would they have eventually intervened if there was say a repeat of the "tanker war" from the 80s, just to protect the flow of oil?

OFFLINE

good question miles. who knows, THAT might've led to the invasion of iraq, to "keep the peace." i think it depends on how much it would've threatened the oil flow.

OFFLINE

I think at that time it would've been an invasion of Iran, as the US was backing Saddam in that war.....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
I think at that time it would've been an invasion of Iran, as the US was backing Saddam in that war.....

wait, are we talking about during the iran-iraq war, or during the build up to the iraq war? because saddam DID have WMDs during the iran-iraq war, and he used them. he also used them on the kurds following the first gulf war, which again, was meant to demonstrate to the iranians that he still had them and would use them.

OFFLINE

Oh I dont.  After what Iran had done to the US, I dont think there was any way on God's green earth we'd have supported them.  We hate the Iran (regime) so much that we were willing to support Saddam at the time.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

wait, are we talking about during the iran-iraq war, or during the build up to the iraq war?

I was talking about the Iran-Iraq war....