@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Davids responses show an irrational adherence to the myth that Saddam HAD nukes. His(Saddam's)weapons program was so disorganized and scattered that he would need another 10 or so years at least to even have the rudiments for testing a nuke.
Then, what the Bush admin did to the legacy of someone like SCott Ritter is an example of how deceit can be used as an effective foreign policy element. Ritter said that WMDs were in a state of disarray and he was villified and made to look like a traitor, with lies about his taking "Bribes" from Saddam's regime. All this was dropped when the march to Bagdhad began.
Davids arguments begin with a ridiculous proposition and then continue on as an extension of logic.Sort of the nuclear equivalent of gungasnork's argument that: "Antediluvian cities occur on the coastal plain of North America, and scholars are finding that these antediluvian cities were wiped out by the Noachian Flood"
No.
Farmer, it is not my position that under Saddam's leadership,
Iraq ever became a nuclear power; this did not happen,
but that fact woud not restrain Saddam from buying a mini-nuke
(or several of them) from Red China, India, maybe Pakistan,
or more likely next door from Russian half-starving army officers
or or scientists, then put said mini-nukes on small boats
(or shipping containers) that will detonate as thay approach
a port city like mine.
THAT was my rationale for overthrowing Saddam;
it was purely defensive. I
cannot conceive of what our troops
are still doing there.
Our mission was ACCOMPLISHED quite a few years ago.
There is not much chance that Saddam or Uday will return to power.
