"They shouldn't have any WOMD but if they do and they use it in self defence I can't blame them.
Every nation has got the right to defend itself.
A bit of a catch 22 situation for Saddam.
I myself think they don't, but if they did they would be much more likely to use them if the US attacked than if they didn't"
It is exactly replies like that that make debate so futile.
1.The reason for the war is allegedly due to WMD. 2.The UN agrees to war if WMD exist, no? 3.You demand an apology from the US if he doesnt use them as proof he didnt have them 4.But then you say if he does have them, you cant blame him. 5. Therefore he has them....
So then surely, the US is right to attack???
Classic case of wanting it both ways.
FWIW, my view of the play will be that SH will only use the WMD in 2 scenarios.
1.Pre-emptively....given all the "leaked" info re the sheer size of the attack about to be unleashed, it well may be that he has WMD assetts secure o/seas that he will use before he is blasted to kingdom come
2. In the event of his survival of the initial stage, but as his regime starts to surrender, then in a sheer fit of pique he will deploy his weapons if they exist.
I have family in the US and what they are most fearful about is not the war in Iraq. Not the prospect of the troops facing WMD.
Rather the scenario that he has secreted WMD in the US and will use them. Lots of fears regarding the 20 missing suitcase nukes from the Russian nuclear programme.
That's what Americans most fear....Least , the ones I have contact with.
