Quote:
Originally posted by winewood
They aren't a threat with 300k troops ... You don't hide something unless you want to keep it. ... Saddam is the threat we are removing. As long as he is there, he will remain a threat.
|
Exactly: they aren't much of a threat, right now.
Of course they want to keep it: wouldn't you want to keep a backup, if you had a gun pointed to your head, asking you to disarm? Wouldn't you want to hold on to something, because you know that when the US leaves, the surrounding countries might jump you, just because you're defenseless?
He is a threat, granted, but how much of a threat? If he has biochemical/nerve agents, what delivery method would he use?
Iraq is known for having used some nerve agents during the gulf war, but in very small quantities, and out on the front line (from US troop commanders). Why? because the Iraqi troops don't have the necessary equipment to protect their own themselves...
Us commanders are assesing the war proceeding as follows: Northern and Southern Iraq will fall within a couple of days. Bagdhad will be surrounded, and that's where the real battle begins. We are currently attempting to negotiate with Iraqi field commanders, the terms of surrender: their officers can hold on to their sidearms, and keep their troops cool-headed, instead of us holding on to them as POWs. In exchange, we'll be able to move forward a bit faster.
As far as I can see, I don't have any information to show me that France's position is without merit. As such, I have to applaud the stance for a diplomatic resolution. Someone prove me wrong here!