Is Saddam really a threat?

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

Personally, I think he is. We have solid proof that he has bio and chem weapons, and very strong evidence to support that he was developing nuclear weapons. However, I don't think an invasion is wise. Why not just send in Special Forces and quickly remove Saddam Bond stlye? War costs
huge amounts of money and time, and can put a serious strain on any economy. What are your opinions?

[Howedar]

A threat to whom?

[TrailerParkJawa]

There is no such thing as removing him Bond style. If it was that easy, and without unforseable consequences, it would have been done already.

Imagine if you had to try and find me, or Raxmei, or Neelong, or Yosemite Bear. All of us are someplace in California. Its a big state, about the size of Iraq. It would be hard to find us, and we dont have guards.

You have to ask yourself, is he trying to build nukes for the sole purpose of attaking the US ? I personally dont think so.

[haas mark]

Honestly, I dunno. He has all these weapons, but the question is, will he utilize them? I think that if Bush pisses him off enough (and, unfortunately, it seems likely to happen), then yes, he will, and that causes him to be a threat. But it is also continuous American 'ineterverntion' that causes him to threaten us. *shrug*

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

A threat to whom?

Umm..... us? The world? Winona Wyder? Who da ya think mon?

[Howedar]

Threat to...

World: no
USA: no
Mental well-being of easily scared US citizens: yes
Middle East: yes
Western world as a whole: no

[haas mark]

Threat to...

World: no
USA: no
Mental well-being of easily scared US citizens: yes
Middle East: yes
Western world as a whole: no

How so, if I may ask?

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

There is no such thing as removing him Bond style. If it was that easy, and without unforseable consequences, it would have been done already.

Imagine if you had to try and find me, or Raxmei, or Neelong, or Yosemite Bear. All of us are someplace in California. Its a big state, about the size of Iraq. It would be hard to find us, and we dont have guards.

You have to ask yourself, is he trying to build nukes for the sole purpose of attaking the US ? I personally dont think so.

Why don't we just airdrop the Enron exec s into Bagdad, have em infiltrate the Iraqi economy, sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch it fall waaay down?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Umm..... us? The world? Winona Wyder? Who da ya think mon?

The entire world ? No. His neighbors? Certainly. The United States. Only to our forces in the region.

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

There is no such thing as removing him Bond style. If it was that easy, and without unforseable consequences, it would have been done already.

Imagine if you had to try and find me, or Raxmei, or Neelong, or Yosemite Bear. All of us are someplace in California. Its a big state, about the size of Iraq. It would be hard to find us, and we dont have guards.

You have to ask yourself, is he trying to build nukes for the sole purpose of attaking the US ? I personally dont think so.

Why don't we just airdrop the Enron exec s into Bagdad, have em infiltrate the Iraqi economy, sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch it fall waaay down?

And we know how many wackos are in California..........

[Raptor 597]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

[haas mark]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

Someone "viable"?

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

Someone "viable"?

GL?

[Frank Hipper]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

Someone "viable"?

Bush sees Saddam as a "soft" target, so to speak. Going after him provides an easy to attack scapegoat, highly visible, with none of Osama's low visibility. Crushing Iraq will provide a sense of accomplishment while deflecting attention from slippery slippery AlQaeda.

[Raptor 597]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

Someone "viable"?

Yes, someone who can be viably blamed & ass whooped. Or just diverting our attention or maybe just claim too claim we're. Then again, must just be the oil.

[haas mark]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.[/list]

Someone "viable"?

Bush sees Saddam as a "soft" target, so to speak. Going after him provides an easy to attack scapegoat, highly visible, with none of Osama's low visibility. Crushing Iraq will provide a sense of accomplishment while deflecting attention from slippery slippery AlQaeda.

In other words, he sees not getting Osama Bin Laden as a failure, and thus must attck the guy we went after n years ago in order to (A) make up for that mistake, and (B) make his and his father's names better. Am I correct in what I am guessing you are inferring here?

[Howedar]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.

Not really. I'm just saying that Iraq indeed poses a threat to the Middle East, and poses a threat to the feel-good-ness of American citizens. It does not, however, pose a viable military or terrorist threat.

[haas mark]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.

Not really. I'm just saying that Iraq indeed poses a threat to the Middle East, and poses a threat to the feel-good-ness of American citizens. It does not, however, pose a viable military or terrorist threat.

May I ask WHY you say it doesn't pose any sort of terrorist threat? I know there is no real military threat, but the fact that they DO have bioweapons, things could go massively wrong...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Threat to...

World: no
USA: no
Mental well-being of easily scared US citizens: yes
Middle East: yes
Western world as a whole: no

A threat to the Middle-East is a threat to the USA.

[Frank Hipper]

Someone "viable"?

Bush sees Saddam as a "soft" target, so to speak. Going after him provides an easy to attack scapegoat, highly visible, with none of Osama's low visibility. Crushing Iraq will provide a sense of accomplishment while deflecting attention from slippery slippery AlQaeda.

In other words, he sees not getting Osama Bin Laden as a failure, and thus must attck the guy we went after n years ago in order to (A) make up for that mistake, and (B) make his and his father's names better. Am I correct in what I am guessing you are inferring here?

Not really. Not that those are also motivations. I believe that since the war on terror is producing liitle in the way of visible results, Bush is diverting our attention to another target, an easier target.

[haas mark]

Threat to...

World: no
USA: no
Mental well-being of easily scared US citizens: yes
Middle East: yes
Western world as a whole: no

A threat to the Middle-East is a threat to the USA.

I agree with this, on a number of levels. First off, if someone can threaten the Middle East, it means they can threaten the American victory. And since our politicians are so proud of themselves, then this is a major threat.

Second, I restate my bioweapons statement.

Third, if they can threaten troops in the Middle East, it is the same as threatening the US itself. The poeple are what make a country, not the land or the weapons, as a lot of people seem to think.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Third, if they can threaten troops in the Middle East, it is the same as threatening the US itself. The poeple are what make a country, not the land or the weapons, as a lot of people seem to think.

Our troops are threatened there because we keep them there. It doesnt mean that is a threat to the US as a whole.

Also, if a threat to the Middle East is a threat to the US, then are we not a threat to ourselves? Invading Iraq is a threat to the other nations there. Its not like every nation there wants it happen.

Basically, the ME is one big fucking mess. That I think we can all agree on.

[haas mark]

Third, if they can threaten troops in the Middle East, it is the same as threatening the US itself. The poeple are what make a country, not the land or the weapons, as a lot of people seem to think.

Our troops are threatened there because we keep them there. It doesnt mean that is a threat to the US as a whole.

Also, if a threat to the Middle East is a threat to the US, then are we not a threat to ourselves? Invading Iraq is a threat to the other nations there. Its not like every nation there wants it happen.

Basically, the ME is one big fucking mess. That I think we can all agree on.

1) Any threat to the US people is a threat to the US populous. As I said, the people make up the country.

2) I said to our victory. It's a pride issue, and a lot of people that have a lot of power in the US are too proud to admit that we just realy don't need thos troops out there.

3) Yes, it is, but if Iraq can take over the Middle East (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, etc.), then they could technically destroy the US, especially with the weapons Israel ALONE has.

[Raptor 597]

verilon, I think what Howedar means is Bush gotta pin the blame on someone viable too make America feel safe.

Not really. I'm just saying that Iraq indeed poses a threat to the Middle East, and poses a threat to the feel-good-ness of American citizens. It does not, however, pose a viable military or terrorist threat.

May I ask WHY you say it doesn't pose any sort of terrorist threat? I know there is no real military threat, but the fact that they DO have bioweapons, things could go massively wrong...

And we had, probably still have bioweapons. So does Russia. We don't go bitching after them too stop keeping a stockpile. We are only picking on a weaker target that we can push around. Saddam is not a dumbass that everyone wants him too be. He's not stupid enough or crazy enough too strike us first. You roll the whole US Army out onto Iraq he's gonna take as many people as he can down with him. Basically, Saddam is an easy target lets show 'results' too the American people. If he has too get rid of his nukes we shoud too. The US is just keeping an iron grip anyway it can.

Edit: Oh, and by the way whats the reaction if he does strike first? Plain and simple sennd a couple dozen minutemens. I'm a hawk when a hawk is supposed too scream. Destroying Iaq for no reason is wrong.

[haas mark]

And we had, probably still have bioweapons. So does Russia. We don't go bitching after them too stop keeping a stockpile. We are only picking on a weaker target that we can push around. Saddam is not a dumbass that everyone wants him too be. He's not stupid enough or crazy enough too strike us first. You roll the whole US Army out onto Iraq he's gonna take as many people as he can down with him. Basically, Saddam is an easy target lets show 'results' too the American people. If he has too get rid of his nukes we shoud too. The US is just keeping an iron grip anyway it can.

I never said they weren't a scapegoat...I'm just wondering why certain people don't see them as a threat in any form? Also, if you've ever played diplomacy, you'd know that all world politics are a ritual of backstabbing, and ANYTHING could happen. This is the way it works in the real world, and the way I have always seen it work.

Well, with that, I have to go interact with people now, so I am logging off in a few.