President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described a vast Iraqi weapons program and talked about several mobile labs, 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. These weapons were supposedly deployed in the war and controlled by field commands that we have long since overrun — so where are they?
-Nick Kristoff in his latest column
There were about a dozen other lies in that State of the Union address. If this lying sack-of-shit shows me all of the above items, we'll call it even on the S.O.T.U.A. Oh, and all those other grudges? They'll still be there, don't worry.
Posted by mike at April 22, 2003 05:21 AMSome general questions I've had . . .
Did we have to wage war with Iraq to make them cease production of new weapons and to not be able to use or sell the ones they had already had? Or was our sheer presence and mobilization enough to prevent them from making and selling WMD?
Was war necessary or could containment have worked? Is their evidence to prove one way or the other, or is most opinion circumstantial because the full extent of the Iraqi WMD program has yet to be disclosed?
Posted by: Greg on April 22, 2003 02:14 PMThanks, that was informative, and I found your point in the third paragraph to be particularly interesting.
But what I was asking in regards to "containment" was not the last 20 years of policy regarding Iraq but the last 4 months or so when we had moved most of our forces into the gulf area. Was that particular military mobilization effectively limiting Hussein's ability to use / create more / sell WMD?
Also, another curious question . . . How much is the US responsible for helping catalyze Hussein's weapons program by giving him possession of chemicals etc.?
I apologize if these questions are too broad I only know what I get from mainstream news sources . . . and the mysterious talking dog in my head.
(PS I am not crazy!) :D