Iraq as a threat and terrorist provider

[IrishHand]

The idea that Iraq has WMD, has nukes, is making WMD, is making nukes and will happily hand them over to terrorists is completely at odds with reality. In order for this to be the case, they would both (a) need to possess these weapons and (b) be inclined to give them to terrorists (for free or at a cost - makes no difference).

(a) Possession of WMD in general, nukes in particular
While I would be surprised if Iraq didn't have some amount of WMD, the fact of the matter remains that despite our unending efforts on this matter, and despite the efforts of UN inspectors, we haven't even been able to prove that they have an envelope full of anthrax, much less the tons of murderous substances that some people like to blindly quote in favor of their arguments. As for the nuclear angle, Chris Alger has a number of well-researched posts about the likelihood of Iraq having nukes either now or in the near future, so I won't bother dealing with this unless someone wants me to cut and paste his post from the other thread. I'll assume you're all able to read and reach the inevitable conclusion that Iraq has exactly zero nuclear weapons, and zero ability to produce such in the next couple of years.
Overall, I would be willing to accept for the sake of discussion that Iraq probably has some WMD, but no nuclear capability whatsoever.

(b) Likelihood of giving those WMD to terrorists
This is my favorite argument...the ones that the pro-war folks just chalk down to "neither side will ever know". That's a complete cop-out and flies in the face of any rational argument. According to those same folks, Iraq has had vast stores of WMD for at least the past decade. Despite this vast supply, not a single terrorist act in the past 10 years has been traced back to Iraq - and you've got to know that we'd have done everything in our power to find that link if it existed. Point 1 - based on past history, we have no reason to believe that Iraq would ever give WMD to terrorists.

People seem to have this idea that Hussein is a raging moron. He's not. He's an intelligent, articulate leader of a nation with important resources who happens to be a bit of an egomaniac with a limited amount of respect for human life. Certainly, the combination of the latter two make him a pretty despicable person and ruler, but neither detracts from the reality that pretty well all his actions in the past have been rational and in line with his goals for his nation. Attacking Iran had potential benefits for Iraq. Attacking Kuwait had clear benefits for Iraq. Iraq has never, nor, I would hazard to guess, would it attack the US. There is simply no possible benefit for that action. Iraq may be characterized as expansionist (although a rational person would say that we killed that option a dozen years ago), but they're hardly suicidal. Point 2 - regardless of past history, Iraq would receive no benefit from giving WMD to terrorists.

[Jimbo]

"Attacking Kuwait had clear benefits for Iraq.

Am I the only one who finds this statement ludicrous when contained in the same post as People seem to have this idea that Hussein is a raging moron."?

Only a raging moron would think he would benefit by attacking Kuwait when what occurred was the near devastation of his Army and the consequences being suffered by him and his country this very day.

These two obvious contradictions as well as many others in your post does not sway me to your side of the aisle.

[Cyrus]

"Only a raging moron [like Saddam Hussein] would think he would benefit by attacking Kuwait when what occurred was the near devastation of his Army and the consequences being suffered by him and his country this very day."

Were it so simple. Saddam certainly did not want any of that. But he decided to embark on that invasion on the following basis : (a) The West would not intervene militarily; (b) Kuwait's annexation has specific historical justifications since the Kingdom was arbitrarily formed by the British Empire some decades ago in order to divide the area; (c) Saddam had, or thought he had, the tacit agreement of the United States to annex Kuwait on the basis of the contacts made with Washington's representative in Baghdad. That he grossly miscalculated, or fell into a trap (choose your term), is not disputed. But it doesn't mean that he's a moron.

Saddam also grossly miscalculated when he annexed a strategic portion of the Straits and, thus, precipitated the decade-long and devastating war with Iran. (Dictators just can't help facilitating entropy.)

[brad]

lets remember that the wmd that saddam did at one time have came straight from the US.