Is Saddam really a threat?

[Raptor 597]

Ah, true enough. But backstabbing is natural and fine. Just I'm dicussing the morality of it. And it's not like Bush won't get his way. It's too late for neogations, he'll be sending weapons inspecting cruise missles sooner oir later.

[Stravo]

Normally I would disagree vehemently that Iraq is not a threat. They damn well are, they can provide AlQueda with the parts for a dirty bomb or a nuke and the rest is history. Frankly if it comes down to even the slightest risk of NYC becoming a a nuclear ground zero and flattening Iraq, I say flatten the shit out of Iraq.

However the argument has been made that Bush went after Sadaam because he is a soft target, essentially a punching bag. I have to agree. north Korea recently admitted they still had a nuclear weapons program and in fact may have nukes. They are just as dangeorus because they have missiles that can reach Japan not to mention they can simply nuke our boys on the DMZ if they so wish, or even more twosted they can provide these materials to outside forces to do with as they please. This cannot be allowed under my interpretation of Bush's policy on Terrorism and Preemptive strikes.

So why not hit the North...because they are a far tougher nut to crack because we could suffer horrendous casualties in doing so.

BUT what message did this just send to all other would be dictators and war mongers...develop nukes and suddenly the US willplay nice.

NOT the message we should be sending at this time. I am frankly very disgusted by this policy shift and even more disgusted by Condolesa Rice's appearance on Meet the Press a few weeks ago trying to justify this policy change and failing miserbaly in my eyes.

[data_link]

There are three ways in which it has been argued that Saddam could pose a threat to the U.S.:

1) Military action against our troops in the middle east.
2) Terrorist acts against the United States
3) Conquering the Middle East and restricting oil supply (serious economic threat.

Solutions:

1) What the hell are our troops doing over there in the first place? Supporting pro-U.S. Dictators? Oh wait, they are... They really shouldn't be there. After all, more people would support the U.S. if we wern't blackmailing them into it.

2) Inform Saddam Hussein about the effects of nuclear weapons on major Iraqi cities. He won't be stupid enough to try.

3) Okay, now this is a potential problem, esp. if we can't interfere due to nuclear missles aimed at New York. However - if it wasn't for guys like G.W. Bush, we might be able to think about say, becoming less dependant on oil? With all their bullshit, this is the one thing environmentalists have got right - if we keep using oil faster than we produce it, then middle east countries have a substantial economic lever to use against us.

[data_link]

Normally I would disagree vehemently that Iraq is not a threat. They damn well are, they can provide AlQueda with the parts for a dirty bomb or a nuke and the rest is history. Frankly if it comes down to even the slightest risk of NYC becoming a a nuclear ground zero and flattening Iraq, I say flatten the shit out of Iraq.

However the argument has been made that Bush went after Sadaam because he is a soft target, essentially a punching bag. I have to agree. north Korea recently admitted they still had a nuclear weapons program and in fact may have nukes. They are just as dangeorus because they have missiles that can reach Japan not to mention they can simply nuke our boys on the DMZ if they so wish, or even more twosted they can provide these materials to outside forces to do with as they please. This cannot be allowed under my interpretation of Bush's policy on Terrorism and Preemptive strikes.

So why not hit the North...because they are a far tougher nut to crack because we could suffer horrendous casualties in doing so.

BUT what message did this just send to all other would be dictators and war mongers...develop nukes and suddenly the US willplay nice.

NOT the message we should be sending at this time. I am frankly very disgusted by this policy shift and even more disgusted by Condolesa Rice's appearance on Meet the Press a few weeks ago trying to justify this policy change and failing miserbaly in my eyes.

Yeah, but North Korea isn't anywhere near oil-bearing countries, so of course little Bushie isn't concerned.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Normally I would disagree vehemently that Iraq is not a threat. They damn well are, they can provide AlQueda with the parts for a dirty bomb or a nuke and the rest is history.

You cant attack countries for what they MIGHT do. Especially when Iraq has never had strong links to Al Queda.

BUT what message did this just send to all other would be dictators and war mongers...develop nukes and suddenly the US willplay nice.

Other war mongers just might as easily interpet our attacking Iraq as a green light for pounding who ever you judge to be threat. Besides, we are buddying up with Pakistan which has nukes, has many terrorists, and is run by a General.

I think Iraq is the big target because we can get away with it. Some of it is certainly personal for Bush, and because frankly of Oil.

[jegs2]

IMO, Saddam is more a symbolic threat than anything else. Islamic terrorists look to Saddam as the man who won in a war against America -- he is still in power, and the man who led armies against him (Bush I) is not. If we take down Iraq and rebuild it in our image, that will likely take a lot of wind out of the sails of Islamists. While they hate brute force and raw military power, Arabs respect it. The destruction of Iraq by US forces would be a psychological blow against Islamic Terrorism. Why is that important? We cannot hope to defeat the terrorists, for they are too scattered and nebulous. But we can defeat a nation, and if that defeat leads to the weakening of Islamic terrorism, all the better. Some will say, "The Arabs will hate us if we attack Iraq!" To them I say, "They already hate us, so they could hardly hate us to any more of a degree." Would such an attack on Iraq be costly? Yes. He will use chemical weapons against attacking forces this time, for he has nothing to lose. That is why Bush is pressuring him to step down by rattling sabers and threatening Saddam at every opportunity. Time will tell if that tactic will be successful or if US forces must finish the job that Desert Storm left undone.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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*

But who would he use them on? The US? Nope, he doesn't have a delivery vehicle that can get weapons into the United States. Sure if he uses biological agents with terrorist agents, he might get somewhere. About the only place he could use them on would be Israel. And they would hit back if he struck first. And sometimes, they don't even wait for that excuse.

[Exonerate]

Well... My only concern is that Saddam might supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groupsm, who will then utilize them against the US. He's certainly a threat to his neighbors, but I doubt if he would be stupid enough to give the US the excuse they need to attack him. Seems like Bush is just going after him for the oil.

[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*

But who would he use them on? The US? Nope, he doesn't have a delivery vehicle that can get weapons into the United States. Sure if he uses biological agents with terrorist agents, he might get somewhere. About the only place he could use them on would be Israel. And they would hit back if he struck first. And sometimes, they don't even wait for that excuse.

Bioweapons don't necessarily have to be delivered. Plus, there are plenty of people just itching to get into the US and pull something. All he realluy has to do is get someone that wants it *that bad* and viola....instant bioweapons. The only thing is, he's scared that he will (A) be found out, or (B) be blamed and nuked before anyone looks into it.

[Raptor 597]

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*

But who would he use them on? The US? Nope, he doesn't have a delivery vehicle that can get weapons into the United States. Sure if he uses biological agents with terrorist agents, he might get somewhere. About the only place he could use them on would be Israel. And they would hit back if he struck first. And sometimes, they don't even wait for that excuse.

Bioweapons don't necessarily have to be delivered. Plus, there are plenty of people just itching to get into the US and pull something. All he realluy has to do is get someone that wants it *that bad* and viola....instant bioweapons. The only thing is, he's scared that he will (A) be found out, or (B) be blamed and nuked before anyone looks into it.

And thats why Saddam is not linked, or doing one hell of a job covering his tracks.

[Admiral Piett]

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

A threat to the soldiers is a threat to the nation? Mmmmm....

"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."

They were not able to take over Iran despite US assistance.Taking over Israel? Fat chance of that happening...

All that he have are some chemical weapons and some biological ones,probably not much better than those in the hands the of US domestic terrorists.There is no proof that he is collaborating with terrorists, in effects it is likely that Bin Laden would like to see him dead.
Delivery is limited to some short range ballistic missiles that can threaten only Israel (which could reduce Iraq to a wasteland in such a case).
His nuclear program cannot go anywhere without supplies of critical equipments and raw materials.And I do not see him handing over his only nuclear weapon to a band of terrorists.He would keep the very few weapons he could put together as a deterrent.
In short the only reasons to invade Iraq are related to the regional politics.
Everything else is just propaganda.
In case you missed that Pakistan has many nuclear weapons, is filled by terrorists and is ruled by a dictator.

[Admiral Piett]

IMO, Saddam is more a symbolic threat than anything else. Islamic terrorists look to Saddam as the man who won in a war against America -- he is still in power, and the man who led armies against him (Bush I) is not.

Bush has been replaced by his son.I am sure that fits with the arab mindset
even as you have described it.They probably think that the son has detronized the father with a coup.
Assuming that the arab mindset is really as the Goebbels clones who write your newspaper describe it.

[haas mark]

Piett: Just because I wrote it, I never said it was entitrely possible.

[Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader]

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.

Russia is in the process of disbanding it's WMDs, and all of the ones currently existing are under heavy internationl guard.

[Raptor 597]

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.

Russia is in the process of disbanding it's WMDs, and all of the ones currently existing are under heavy internationl guard.

Yes, I know that. But my point is we don't threaten too invade them when they a full swin biological program. "Hello, Mr. USSR, we'll kill you if you don't shut down your Nuclear wapons.
USSR: Fine, you want them shut down? We'll shut down a few hundred within the American Border."

Moral: You only fuck with a space goat that can't hurt you.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

No. He's no threat to the US. He has no ICBMs that could possibly hit it. Despite popular belief, Saddam isn't stupid enough to give his only nuke to a terrorist. He ain't a Islamic fundie. The only way he can possibly hurt the US is surprise! Nuke soldiers invading. And that would be a one way ticket to a glass parking lot Iraq,


The only target Saddam can actually hit is Isreal. And while I'm sure he'd love to see Tel Aviv burn, he loves life a lot more. He's not suicidal. Bahdad would been in ruins and Merkavas would be poaring out of Isreal.

[Darth Yoshi]

No. He's no threat to the US. He has no ICBMs that could possibly hit it. Despite popular belief, Saddam isn't stupid enough to give his only nuke to a terrorist. He ain't a Islamic fundie. The only way he can possibly hurt the US is surprise! Nuke soldiers invading. And that would be a one way ticket to a glass parking lot Iraq,


The only target Saddam can actually hit is Isreal. And while I'm sure he'd love to see Tel Aviv burn, he loves life a lot more. He's not suicidal. Bahdad would been in ruins and Merkavas would be poaring out of Isreal.

I seriously don't get where the whole notion of Saddam being a fundie comes from. His regime is secular.

[data_link]

I seriously don't get where the whole notion of Saddam being a fundie comes from. His regime is secular.

Which is why the U.S. thinks he is a threat - he's going to spread his evil atheist philosophies around the world, educating his people and causing them to reject Christianity. They can't stand seeing anybody who isn't Christian in a position of power, so they want to knock Saddam down while he's still unable to strike back.

Now tell me if I was being sarcastic.

[Enforcer Talen]

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?

well, assassinations have been ruled out for a while. . . we dont want people doing the same to us. and saddam is as paranoid as most tyrants, with bodygaurds, erratic schedules, and doubles.

is he a threat to the u.s. at this time? prolly not. will he be? if we leave him alone, possibly. he reminds me of hitler, in some ways. lying through his teeth at the diplomatic table, doing surprise invasions, and completely uncaring about his populace. leave him alone, he might manage the middle east, particularly with a rack of wmds. with that, he could cause some trouble. . . not to mention *really* hurt the u.s. oil thirst.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

No. He's no threat to the US. He has no ICBMs that could possibly hit it. Despite popular belief, Saddam isn't stupid enough to give his only nuke to a terrorist. He ain't a Islamic fundie. The only way he can possibly hurt the US is surprise! Nuke soldiers invading. And that would be a one way ticket to a glass parking lot Iraq,


The only target Saddam can actually hit is Isreal. And while I'm sure he'd love to see Tel Aviv burn, he loves life a lot more. He's not suicidal. Bahdad would been in ruins and Merkavas would be poaring out of Isreal.

I seriously don't get where the whole notion of Saddam being a fundie comes from. His regime is secular.

Propaganda probably. It's easy to paint him as a crazyy fundie. Saddam Insane anyone?

[Master of Ossus]

Saddam and his regime are clearly threats to the future that should probably have been dealt with in the original Gulf War. His WoMD programs, including nuclear development programs, are self-evidently designed to destabilize the already volatile region, and the fact that he was willing to launch SCUD missiles against Israel, a neutral country in the original conflict, clearly demonstrates his unsavory character and his willingness to go to any lengths to harm innocents, further demonstrated by his treatment of his own people and his violence in putting down the Kurdish rebels in the North. Hussein is quite obviously willing to use WoMD (he's used them several times before), and his current biological and nuclear agents are obviously dangerous.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What does "threat" mean? To the US? To the Middle East? To Iraq?

[Admiral Piett]

his current biological and nuclear agents are obviously dangerous.

Can you specify what nuclear agents are you speaking about?
By the way,his batteriological arsenal is not probably much better than that in the hands of US domestic terrorists.

[Mr. B]

Iraq is no threat to the US. He is only a target of opportunity for the US and the oil industry. Wiping out Saddams regime would be a sign to the American people that the 'war on terror" is not a complete failure. And not to mention give the Iraqi oil fields over to American oil companies.

In all likelyhood Iraq has no nuclear weapons or any means to build them. And in my opinion he no longer has the vast stockpiles of Bio or chem weapons he once did. He may have some stored away to use in some last ditch defensive action(ie an American Invasion) but not enough to justify military action. Israel probably has more NBC weapons than the rest of the middle east combined. Certantly more nukes. They possibly have 200 or more.

The real threats to the US are not Iraq or terrorists but our reactions to terrorists. The US becoming a police state to "protect" us from terrorists. The government willing to ignore the worlds opinion and invade sovereign nations at will to keep them from "posing a future threat".

I fear what is happening to my country and the world.

[Raptor 597]

Iraq is no threat to the US. He is only a target of opportunity for the US and the oil industry. Wiping out Saddams regime would be a sign to the American people that the 'war on terror" is not a complete failure. And not to mention give the Iraqi oil fields over to American oil companies.

In all likelyhood Iraq has no nuclear weapons or any means to build them. And in my opinion he no longer has the vast stockpiles of Bio or chem weapons he once did. He may have some stored away to use in some last ditch defensive action(ie an American Invasion) but not enough to justify military action. Israel probably has more NBC weapons than the rest of the middle east combined. Certantly more nukes. They possibly have 200 or more.

The real threats to the US are not Iraq or terrorists but our reactions to terrorists. The US becoming a police state to "protect" us from terrorists. The government willing to ignore the worlds opinion and invade sovereign nations at will to keep them from "posing a future threat".

I fear what is happening to my country and the world.

Yes, and Fundies wonder why much of the World hates us, rents, ys, or wants to destroy us.