In 1998, Saddam threw out the UN inspectors as he wasn't getting intense heat from Clinton on the issue, so it's understandable that he would flex his muscles and kick the inspectors out. In 2002, Saddam knew the US went into Afghanistan in 2001 and killed the Taliban in search of UBL. He heard GWB make a promise to go after anyone that harbored terrorists. Some people might even say that GWB was a "cowboy" looking for a fight. Some posters have likened the Iraqi Republican Guard and Fedayeen to 7th Grade kids fighting against the vaunted US led coalition forces. Saddam had to know the odds of his defenses against the US. In light of an america, supposedly hell-bent on attacking any conceivable threat, why would saddam not welcome the inspectors in 2002 with open arms. Why wouldn't he allow them close to unfetterred access to his country? Yes, saddam may have thought he was omnipotent, but I'm sure he would have cared enough for his power and his legacy to allow this access if there was no risk. Why would saddam have taken the risk that he has taken? Why did saddam take the ultimate risk for himself and his family if he had nothing to hide?
man, who knows what saddam was/is thinking? i just hope he's not hiding a bunch of crap in tunnels underneath baghdad, waiting for as many americans as possible to file into the city before releasing all kinds of chemical weapon mass destruction mustard anthrax gas sirin holocaust insanity.........
I think he got the indication (as did most of us) that the inspections were irrelevant. Bush was going to attack. So is it better to fight with chemical and bio weapons or without?
just guessing. Saddam's power and ability to hold onto the country were based on fear. Real weapons inspections would have destroyed any real capabilities he had to inflict damage on his people and exposed that his military was much weaker than he let on. With that realization, the people of Iraq would have been embolden to revolt. Saddam couldn't allow that to happen. as I said, just a guess
Wrong. Why don't you invite in the next cop you see to check your apartment for pot? If you don't, you aren't "fully cooperating" with the authorities. Look, Saddam is (was?) a jackass, but that doesn't give Bush a blank check.
I think MLSNHTOWN is right. Besides, it wasn't a very good secret that we had spies among the inspectors - you can't let them get too good a look at your defenses (or lack of them).
Actually, this is probably one thing for which the Iraqi people should be thankful of France, Russia, Germany and the millions of war protestors. It's certainly more likely that a united world community threatening force if Hussein didn't allow inspectors free reign would have eventually caused him to capitulate, avoiding this war and allowing him to remain in power. After all, he didn't really need WMD to keep an iron grip on his own people. His belief that he could use the split in the world community to survive, that his friends would bail him out if he dragged the conflict out long enough, is probably what lead him to believe he had a chance at surviving after standing up to the great satan. He was wrong, and now he's gone.
If Saddam DIDN'T have WMD, why not let the inspectors in? Why would he allow the possibility (98% probability)that he would lose his palaces, his wealth, his life and sons? As for losing control of his countrymen, I think the torture helped a great deal to keep them in line. I still can't answer this question, Why did saddam take the ultimate risk for himself and his family if he had nothing to hide? The only logical answer to me, seems to be that he had something to hide.
Someone has already pointed out another reason that is just as logical: He thought Bush would find an excuse to overthrow him no matter what.
Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Don't you think a closer analogy would be that the cop knocks on your door, shows you copies of your own records showing that you purchased a hundred pounds of pot, and offers to let you off scott free if you give it up or show proof you destroyed it?
Re: Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? It would be illegal for a cop to do that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Thank God we don't let the UN govern our country.
Yes, but that gives Saddam almost no chance of lasting. At least if he had given the UN access and co-operation, he would have increased his chances. Let me give you an example, My principal thought that I (a 9 y/o) had ammo in my locker, which would of course be not allowed on school grounds. I deny it. Would I be better off to give him access and co-operation or would I be better served to think that he just has it in for me and stop him from perusing my locker? If I know I don't have the ammo, why would I stop the inspection?
Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Aaron Brown tried this line of reasoning on Daniel Ellsberg, and was all but laughed off the air. Let me try to paraphrase Ellsberg's response. The idea that Saddam is canny enough to hide WMD, manipulate the UN, and yet dumb enough to think that Bush cared about anti-war protestors, is laughable. Since no one knows what was Saddam's strategy or thinking, assuming he was relying on the international peace movement to win his battles for him is fairly absurd.
However logistically improbable that is, it's exactly what came to my mind during one of my more vacant moments today. Thousands of US troops pile into Baghdad, even more Iraqis come out of the woodwork to celebrate the downfall of Saddam etc. Saddam, having fled the city, and having wired the city's sewer system or air-conditioning units up with explosives and nasty chemicals etc - then pushes a big red button (or more likely finds a few Fedayeen, still desperate to die for him, to do it from within Baghdad) and all manner of awfulness happens. Infidels and traitors die horribly. Like I said, I was feeling pretty vacant (ha), but if was him that's what I'd do. I'd be a fantastic dictator - I've even got my grisly demise combined with explosive finale figured out.
Re: Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Actually, I was more focused on the split between the UN Security council than a bunch of yahoo's parading in the streets. I thought it was obvious, sorry for the confusion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Wow, where on earth did I get the idea that you were talking about the protestors? Guess I must have dreamed it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why didn't Saddam FREELY submit to inspections? Problem is Dan, you completely left out the France, Germany and Russia part in your response, and focused merely on the fact that I included war protestors in my original comment. Are you saying that their (I am inserting this to make it perfectly clear that "their" refers to France, Germany and Russia, not the protestors. Got it? France...Germany...Russia) support for him had zero affect on him?
> you left out allah is great. Is he a reporter for the Washington Post? They, the New York Times and the Boston Globe all came out with articles in early 1999 saying the same thing. The Guardian says "the presence of CIA agents was later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors".