Saddam Hussein used WMD against Iran and against the Kurds. He never used them against an opponent who actually had nukes. In that sense, he's acted pretty rationally. He never attacked Israel.

Why would he have behaved differently against the U.S.?

Originally posted by SlutBag
Saddam Hussein used WMD against Iran and against the Kurds. He never used them against an opponent who actually had nukes. In that sense, he's acted pretty rationally. He never attacked Israel.

Why would he have behaved differently against the U.S.?
What about those scuds that land in Tel Aviv and Haifa? I think that was an attack on Israel.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
What about those scuds that land in Tel Aviv and Haifa? I think that was an attack on Israel.

Were they "WMD"?

But you said he never attacked Israel. So maybe he did and maybe he didnt. It is still being debated what might be causing Persian Gulf Sickness, it is in Israel as well.
But he has attacked us without WMD's as long ago as 1987, So to say he wasnt a threat is false.

Bush said he was a threat because of the WMD’s…
But I’m sure he is a threat to America, because of something besides the WMD’s, he either shipped away (meaning he didn’t have them, so he was not a threat), or he destroyed, or he was hiding (even though the UN searched almost every spot in Iraq, we haven’t found anything because you know we can search far faster then the UN, while giving Iraq a democracy, or our satellites haven’t picked the areas where they are “hiding”)

But yes his army is a threat to us (4th largest in the world), even though it hasn’t caused us much trouble in Iraq...but it sure was a big threat!

wow, the left isnt even trying to hide their belief and suppor tof saddams intentions or claims anymore. soon you will see idiot college students at starbucks with saddam on a T-shirt

Originally posted by Travh20
wow, the left isnt even trying to hide their belief and suppor tof saddams intentions or claims anymore. soon you will see idiot college students at starbucks with saddam on a T-shirt

Trav, your capacity for exaggeration has reached new heights, or maybe new lows.

First, no one here represents the views of "the left" just their own opinions.

Second, neither Slutbag or OD has said anything in "support" of Saddam, despite what your hallucinations might tell you.

Slutbag was pointing out that despite claims that Saddam was a "madman" with WMD's, he never used them against a country that could retaliate with nukes, so perhaps he isn't as irrational as was claimed. (as opposed to some of the people who post on this board).

Trav, instead of attacking "the left" in every post why don't you try debating the points raised.

I dont bebate with those who side with saddam, sorry. as soon as someone screams at me how much of a threat saddam wasnt, or how rational he really was, I tune out. and the funny thing is, its always the left who is saying such things, find me one instance where a conservative has argued saddams argument for him. yes, if you claim he was no threat or that he was somehow not as crazy as we all think, you are argung what saddam himself said about himself. you may not be doing it to intentionally help saddam, but thats what it is.

Saddam was a madman...it does not necessarily mean he was crazy in the head. Everything he did was thought out and methodical...from his rise in power, to the methods he used to keep power. I think his biggest mistake was misunderestimating the will of G. W. Bush and listening to the French who told him we would not attack. This is one of the reasons I think he did not use WMD against our troops when we went into Iraq. He was still hoping to hold out for a moral victory and that we would not overthrow him as we did not in Gulf War I. Saddam knew that to use WMD against our forces as we advanced into Iraq would have given the US all the justification in the world that our invasion was just and we would not be sitting here discussing where his WMD went.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont bebate with those who side with saddam, sorry. as soon as someone screams at me how much of a threat saddam wasnt, or how rational he really was, I tune out.

I didn't see anyone scream at you, and generally you don't tune them out, you just post an attack on the "leftists".

yes, if you claim he was no threat or that he was somehow not as crazy as we all think, you are argung what saddam himself said about himself. you may not be doing it to intentionally help saddam, but thats what it is.

Trav, believe it or not I do understand that your feelings stem from a deep and abiding loyalty to this country, but the problem is that you don't think that anyone who questions our government could possibly be as loyal an American as you, and that's just not the case. I question our government because it's not perfect and I would like to see it improve.

As to whether or not Saddam is insane, we really can't say with any certainty, but our government portrayed him as an irrational madman with his finger on a button, just waiting to unleash WMD's upon the United States. This image of fear was not put forward by the government accidentally, it was done to foster support for the war with Iraq, and in retrospect it seems to have rather overblown the threast he did pose. Yes, Saddam was a threat. The question now is, was he such a threat that it required us to go to war when we did? He apparently either didn't have the WMD's that we were told he did, or he wasn't willing to risk using them against the U.S. If he decided to not use them because he feared the consequences, that can hardly be the act of a crazed madman...it shows rational thought and an appreciation of the consequences of his actions.

Originally posted by The Republican
Saddam was a madman...it does not necessarily mean he was crazy in the head. Everything he did was thought out and methodical...from his rise in power, to the methods he used to keep power.

I'm not sure how someone can be a madman, yet not insane. Yes, he was very methodical, and he did know what it takes to be a ruthless dictator.

I think his biggest mistake was misunderestimating the will of G. W. Bush and listening to the French who told him we would not attack. This is one of the reasons I think he did not use WMD against our troops when we went into Iraq. He was still hoping to hold out for a moral victory and that we would not overthrow him as we did not in Gulf War I. Saddam knew that to use WMD against our forces as we advanced into Iraq would have given the US all the justification in the world that our invasion was just and we would not be sitting here discussing where his WMD went.

I have to wonder at your use of the term "misunderestimating"...it is one of GWB's more famous malapropisms :confused:

I can't agree that Saddam believed he would remain in power. I suppose it's possible, but we made it pretty clear that we were going to attack, and if we did we were going to be coming after him. If in fact he believed that he would stay in power, perhaps that would be evidence of irrationality.

we used the strategery of misunderstimating to bring down saddam. serioulsy, I odnt understan why people opposed to the war say that we need to get rid of saddm, but did we have to do it right now? when would propose we got rid of saddam if not right now pagan? after 9-11 we dont have the luxury of relying on the word and good intentions of people like saddam hussein. so tell me, when would you say would be the right time to attack? after the UN decides its the right time? when would that be? when saddam stopped paying kickbacks to the french and russians and koffi annan? when a man with a (D) next to his name occupied the oval office? when? I didnt know post 9-11 threats had the convienince of being saddled with political correctness. i though tthe entire lesson of 9-11 was to deal with threats before they hit us, not after.

Originally posted by Travh20
wow, the left isnt even trying to hide their belief and suppor tof saddams intentions or claims anymore. soon you will see idiot college students at starbucks with saddam on a T-shirt

Nice attitude. Do you understand what your icon means?

Originally posted by Travh20
we used the strategery of misunderstimating to bring down saddam. serioulsy, I odnt understan why people opposed to the war say that we need to get rid of saddm, but did we have to do it right now? when would propose we got rid of saddam if not right now pagan? after 9-11 we dont have the luxury of relying on the word and good intentions of people like saddam hussein. so tell me, when would you say would be the right time to attack? after the UN decides its the right time? when would that be? when saddam stopped paying kickbacks to the french and russians and koffi annan? when a man with a (D) next to his name occupied the oval office? when? I didnt know post 9-11 threats had the convienince of being saddled with political correctness. i though tthe entire lesson of 9-11 was to deal with threats before they hit us, not after.

Considering our country had no war plan or exit strategy, I would say that Spring 2003 was not the ideal time. There are ruthless dictators (including in North Korea which ACTUALLY had a WMD program) that we didn't attack. Will we attack all of them "preemptively"? If there's one thing the invasion of Iraq showd the world, it's that the U.S. will only attack you if you don't have nukes.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
But you said he never attacked Israel. So maybe he did and maybe he didnt. It is still being debated what might be causing Persian Gulf Sickness, it is in Israel as well.
But he has attacked us without WMD's as long ago as 1987, So to say he wasnt a threat is false.

Point well taken. I think I was trying to say that he didn't use WMD against other nations that had them. It would be pretty irrational to attack the U.S., which has enough WMD to kill the world, what, 7 times over? (Pulled that out of my ass:))

Originally posted by SlutBag
Considering our country had no war plan or exit strategy, I would say that Spring 2003 was not the ideal time. There are ruthless dictators (including in North Korea which ACTUALLY had a WMD program) that we didn't attack. Will we attack all of them "preemptively"? If there's one thing the invasion of Iraq showd the world, it's that the U.S. will only attack you if you don't have nukes.

I think we had a very good war plan...the speed in which we toppled the former Iraqi government is testament to this. It has been the mismanagement of the occupation that was not planned well.

As for North Korea, I wonder how we would have dealt with them differently had they been forthright prior to us amassing troops in Iraq and getting a resolution authorizing force against Iraq at the UN. Would we have been more forcefull against the North Koreans than we were with Iraq? Would the invasion of Iraq never had happened?

Originally posted by The Republican
I think we had a very good war plan...the speed in which we toppled the former Iraqi government is testament to this. It has been the mismanagement of the occupation that was not planned well.


Maybe a good plan for war, but Bush should have planned for the occupation that he was so keen on doing. We have failed miserably in terms of giving them a Democracy. The majority of Iraqis reveal angers towards us. We allowed abuse in Iraq. And there officials are being shot and killed weekly. We did not plan for the after effects, and that is just as damaging as not planning for the war itself.

Originally posted by The Republican
As for North Korea, I wonder how we would have dealt with them differently had they been forthright prior to us amassing troops in Iraq and getting a resolution authorizing force against Iraq at the UN. Would we have been more forcefull against the North Koreans than we were with Iraq? Would the invasion of Iraq never had happened?

I highly doubt we would have been forceful with North Korea, because they actually have weapons. You see, we won’t attack Iran, or NK, because they actually are a threat to us. But any county that isn’t a threat, that Bush does not “like”, we will attack.

we will let overdose, slutbag and korg lead the initial assault on North korea since they all seem to mention daily how we should have attacked north korea. a little tip: if you against the war, dont suggest starting onther one to try and show why the one you oppose wasnt a good idea, it looks bad.

Originally posted by Travh20
we will let overdose, slutbag and korg lead the initial assault on North korea since they all seem to mention daily how we should have attacked north korea. a little tip: if you against the war, dont suggest starting onther one to try and show why the one you oppose wasnt a good idea, it looks bad.

I am an anti-war, bleeding heart pacifist. You would definitely know that if I had been posting here for more than a day.

Do you think promoting endless war and questioning the consistency of U.S. foreign policy is the same thing? How did you come to that conclusion?

(Hint: I am anti-war, so I would not be for war with North Korea or Iraq. Sorry if you got that impression, but it is incorrect.)

I guess I can out this simply, war is a horrible thing, but because not everyone else in the world thinks like you huys it is needed to protect our overseas interest, our people here and abroad and our borders themselvs.
No matter what any commission says, Salman Pak existed, Zarqawi was wounded in battle against us in Afghanistan and flown to Iraq by Hussein himself and treated by the Presidents own doctors. Al Qaeda's second in command, sometimes a connection is so apparent that it is not visible.
I am sure that HUssein turned down bin Ladens request for assistance officialy and the treatment of this lt shows he assisted beneath those very channels.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I guess I can out this simply, war is a horrible thing, but because not everyone else in the world thinks like you huys it is needed to protect our overseas interest, our people here and abroad and our borders themselvs.
No matter what any commission says, Salman Pak existed, Zarqawi was wounded in battle against us in Afghanistan and flown to Iraq by Hussein himself and treated by the Presidents own doctors. Al Qaeda's second in command, sometimes a connection is so apparent that it is not visible.
I am sure that HUssein turned down bin Ladens request for assistance officialy and the treatment of this lt shows he assisted beneath those very channels.

Well, if that first part of your response was about my pacifism: just because I bring it up doesn't mean it's the main topic of discussion. I have thought about the reasons for my pacifism for years, so I would prefer to devote another thread to it. (It's not something that I can explain in a handy little paragraph).

What I *was* getting at was the dude's comment (don't remember who) that I was inconsistent. I am not inconsistent concering war, and that's the reason I brought up what I did.

Hussein was and is still a threat to our security, both economic and strategic.
If you look at a thread called the B_V and OD show in politics you will see my points on this.
In short Husseins started a push to seize that areas oil supplies in early 1980's and was still one of his ambitions in 2002.
He has backed terror groups (salman pak) and trained them to disrupt the oil supply as well as directly atacking neighbors.
I am not going into depth in this thread but my views are laid out in the above mentioned thread.
I love peace and happiness as much or maybe more than most people, but there comes a time for everything.

Originally posted by Overdose
Bush said he was a threat because of the WMD’s…
But I’m sure he is a threat to America, because of something besides the WMD’s, he either shipped away (meaning he didn’t have them, so he was not a threat), or he destroyed, or he was hiding (even though the UN searched almost every spot in Iraq, we haven’t found anything because you know we can search far faster then the UN, while giving Iraq a democracy, or our satellites haven’t picked the areas where they are “hiding”)

But yes his army is a threat to us (4th largest in the world), even though it hasn’t caused us much trouble in Iraq...but it sure was a big threat! yeah, manuel noriega wasnt really jailed for what they say he was jailed for.....he knew too much about the drug trade that involved american govt officials. so maybe saddam knew something......hey, its not far fetched, its happened before. and also, somethings up, because we went to war, and the reason was fraudulent.........

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Hussein was and is still a threat to our security, both economic and strategic.
If you look at a thread called the B_V and OD show in politics you will see my points on this.
In short Husseins started a push to seize that areas oil supplies in early 1980's and was still one of his ambitions in 2002.
He has backed terror groups (salman pak) and trained them to disrupt the oil supply as well as directly atacking neighbors.
I am not going into depth in this thread but my views are laid out in the above mentioned thread.
I love peace and happiness as much or maybe more than most people, but there comes a time for everything. he seized the oil, and halliburton seized the contract........one mans trailer is another mans cottage.....huh ? what makes him so much different than the dirty people we have here......its all wrong. how do we measure degrees of wrong ? he was only a threat to control the oil.....we do it here all of the time

Korg, dont you have some seminars to be attending right now?

Only a threat to control the oil? Are you willing to give up that much to allow him to remain in power?
Think about how much you would lose if we and the world lost 35% of our daily oil supply.
DOnt be ridiculous Korg, not only the oil but the markets as well and of course everything you buy as well as you might be unemployed if your radio station couldnt sell ads because the economy was in a tail spin.
Could you do that without protesting that the government should support all of those who were in need because of Hussein, or without yelling at Bush to remove Hussein frompower after it was too late.

But BV - oil is an economical threat, not a military threat. Do you think the USA should attack Japan for gaining marketshares in the automobile industry, or Europe to protect Boeing from Airbus ?