Is Saddam really a threat?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-01 03:24pm

The pro-assassination people forget two things.

1) The US (IIRC) agreed at some point not to pull those kinds of shenanigans anymore.

2) Saddam's sons (whom the regime would probably be passed to in the event of his death) are just as bad if not worse that dear old dad.

Personally, I don't think he's a direct threat to the US. But, I think that there should be serious consequences for any violations of the cease-fire agreements that the inspection teams find in the future... and not just limp-dick UN resolutions that Saddam always ignores.

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-12-01 03:26pm

My ultrajingoistic streak makes me want to suggest killing his sons off if they cause trouble. But my rational streak decries that idea.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-12-01 03:46pm

Uraniun235 wrote:The pro-assassination people forget two things.

1) The US (IIRC) agreed at some point not to pull those kinds of shenanigans anymore.

2) Saddam's sons (whom the regime would probably be passed to in the event of his death) are just as bad if not worse that dear old dad.

Personally, I don't think he's a direct threat to the US. But, I think that there should be serious consequences for any violations of the cease-fire agreements that the inspection teams find in the future... and not just limp-dick UN resolutions that Saddam always ignores.

Yeah, and us, the US, avoids, twists it, or refuse too accept UN resolutions. Yet isn't it convient that we shove down the throats people we want want too destroy or neutralize.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-02 08:57am

Mr. B wrote: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.

I do not know how much the US oil companies really enter in the equation.
And I would not be surprised if his people were happy of the US wiping out
Saddam and his cousin (nicknamed "the chemist",guess why).Still the war has a destabilizing potential that cannot be ignored.And the Bush strategy is flawed at the root.

GREAHSIAM · Post by **GREAHSIAM** » 2002-12-06 12:35pm

I find it interesting that the big boogey-man went from Osama Bin A-Hole to Saddam H. Supposedly Sad had targeted Bush Senior for asassination. Dub-Yuh(JuniorBush), has said because Sad targeted da-da, then we have to open-up a big can of whoop-ass on him. I agree that Sad is a real psycho nut case and the world would be a much better place with him out of the picture.
OK, let's go get Sad. Let's nuke 'em till they glow. Just one condition.
The assault is led by Dub-Yuh's daughters. And by the sons and daughters of all the ultra right-wing beater-of-wardrums. Lets see just how much they are willing to sacrifice their children for the glorious victory.

It's the economy, stupid.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-12-06 01:05pm

Urrg, Sadam is not a military threat to the US. He is however a economic and diplomatic threat to the US and our interests. No matter how much some people decry it, the US and most if not all other countries run on "the black evil" oil. Any president, either a oil man from texas or a peacenik from California or a stiff neck from Tennessee would have to act to a serious destabilizing force in the area where we get alot of our oil from.

Like it or not, Sadam represents a serious problem to our preasent and future ability of buy oil from the largest oil producing area. He also represents a serious diplomatic threat in that he pay's money to various parties who are against us, some that are not opposed to using force against us(the US). He is a threat to the US, because he will harbor our enemies and will be allowed to be used as a safe haven for our enemies.

Can he invade North Carolina? No, but he can work against our interests and in some ways, in a violent way. We would not be the only country in history to go to war over being cut off from our oil supplies and economic growth. It is also courious that some of our "allies" like France, and Russia do not want conflict with Iraq. Yes countries like France, and Russia who have large deals with Iraq for oil and inport/export deals, who don't want us to defend our own oil and trade deals.

And last but not least, it is our fault that we are dealing with this threat today. Ten years ago, we listened to the world and did not crush this ass when we were over there. After ten years of "containment" and basicly wishing that he would just go away, we are now forced to go back and finish something that should have been completed years ago. If we do not take care of this problem, our credibility will suffer. Yes, people hate us and some people will always hate us that is the way of the world. But if people stop fearing or respecting us for our strengths, we will have alot more problems than we do now. If we allow Sadam to thumb his nose at us like he has for years, then our credibility will continue to decline. When is the last time you saw Kadaffi on TV giving the US the birdy finger?

Your right, its the economy stupid. And if we allow this dick head to dominate the largest oil producing area in the world and be in charge by default of our econemy, we are screwed.

As alway's IMHO.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2002-12-06 01:08pm

Saddam ain't a threat, and Bush is just using him for cannon foder.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-06 01:40pm

"Ten years ago, we listened to the world and did not crush this ass when we were over there."

Maybe because Bush & co did not want to bother with Iraq.You might have had to take over Baghdad, occupy the country with all the related complications and then find someone to replace him.It could have not been easy and it would have been a risk.Plus the local allies probably would have not supported that.At the time it was probably judged that it was not worth the effort.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-06 01:45pm

Saddam has harbored and trained recruits from the Palestinian Liberation Front, and he has local pro-iraq organizations in Israel pay families of suicide bombers $15,000, for their martyrdom.

While the CIA has doubts regarding the alleged meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Sept 11th terrorist Mohammad Atta, it should be noted that Czech police who first reported the possible link have NOT backed down from their assertions.

While there is no direct de-classified evidence linking Saddam to al-queda, that does not mean that he doesn't have connections. He knows enough terrorist groups in the Middle East that have been afiliated with al-queda to make it highly unlikely that there is no link between his regime and al-queda.

Saddam is a threat to the United States because he poses a threat to US troops stationed in the region, and to our ally Israel. He has links to terrorist organizations that destabalize the region, and he harbors terrorists who have clear intentions of harming US interests at home and abroad. Removing him from the Middle East equation would greatly aid the peace process in the long term, and would deny potential terrorists a safe haven.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-06 02:07pm

"Saddam has harbored and trained recruits from the Palestinian Liberation Front, and he has local pro-iraq organizations in Israel pay families of suicide bombers $15,000, for their martyrdom."

Like several countries in the area.

"While the CIA has doubts regarding the alleged meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Sept 11th terrorist Mohammad Atta, it should be noted that Czech police who first reported the possible link have NOT backed down from their assertions."

Oh,let me guess, we should attack a country only because someone in the Czech police forgot to retreat a statement that was probably of dubious value in first place.

"While there is no direct de-classified evidence linking Saddam to al-queda, that does not mean that he doesn't have connections."

If there was anything of classfied be sure that Bush would go around saying that "I have proofs of his connection with Al Quaeda but I cannot show you".
There is not even evidence that France is supplying Bin Laden with nukes, but this does not mean that they are not doing it.So you should preeemptively strike France.

"Saddam is a threat to the United States because he poses a threat to US troops stationed in the region."

Personally,I love this.So you want to wipe out any potential threat to the US troops abroad? Well let us not forget to wipe out North Korea and China...
Ooops, the first is a too hard bone (south Korea will not give you the permission to use its bases as staging point and you cannot take over them by amphibious assault alone) and the second is a nuclear power.Mmmm

"and to our ally Israel"

The israelis will have him hung by the balls if he dares to look them in the wrong way.And probably he would not even able to harm them in a significant way before that.

Sorry the only justification to kick Saddam ass are either in terms of sheer realpolitk or in terms of human rights.But if I was you I would hesitate to use the second argument,someone might remeber that you were helping him when he was gasing his opponents.The improvement for the Iraqi people will be nothing more than a side effect,like it was for the argentinians the downfall of the Videla's junta in the aftermath of the defeat in the war of the Falkland.
Notice that the british did not claim that were waging war to free the oppressed argentinian people.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-06 04:10pm

Merely hours after the Sept 11th attack, President Bush stated that America would hunt down the perpetrators of the attack, along with those who harbored them. Iraqs terrorist connections could certainly place them in the latter category of targets.

Al-Queda has connections to the PLF, and other organizations that have been recruited, trained and controlled by Iraqi intelligence inside Iraq. This group is active in the Palestinian Authority, and serves as a liason between Arafat and Hussein. Both Iraq and Al-Queda have links to the Al-Ansar terrorist organization, operating in Northern Iraq against the Kurds. With the likely meeting in prauge between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, it becomes much more difficult for me to believe that Iraq has not at some point harbored and or trained al-quada operatives.

Hussein's intentions are clearly hostile to US interests, and he has shown a willingness to use terrorism as means to eliminate opponents (the failed attack on Bush 41 being the primary example). He is a brutal dictator who supports terrorist efforts, he is trying to accquire weapons of mass destruction, and he actively opresses the will of his own people. Granted, there are other regimes that have actrocious human rights records in the region, but none are as widespread and as cruel as Hussein's human rights record. Eliminating Hussein by no means will solve the threat of terrorism once and for all, but it will be a big step towards achieving that goal.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-12-06 04:47pm

Something that hasn't been mentioned in regards to oil and Iraq:

If Hussein were toppled and the Iraqi oil fields opened to the world economy again, the price of oil would NOT suddenly drop. OPEC would immediately cut production to keep prices at current levels.

What Iraqi oil WOULD be is leverage against the Saudis. Nobody in the current administration is deluding themselves into thinking the House of Saud is anything but a repressive dictatorship with a huge share of the responsibility for the spread of Wahabbi Islamofascism. We need them, however, because they supply Japan and Western Europe with the oil those countries need, and in the modern economy, if Europe or Japan goes down, the United States (and everyone else) goes with them. The Iraqi oil reserves, opened up to the world market again, would provide a viable alternative to the Saudis and essentially put the Royal Family's balls in a clamp: they'd depend on the U.S. to prop up their worthless regime, but we wouldn't depend on them for energy.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-06 05:24pm

"Iraqs terrorist connections could certainly place them in the latter category of targets."

These "connections" would be enough to place the USA or the UK on the target lists.The UCK were linked muslim international terrorism(without mentioning that Osama was one of your proxies).London is filled by "islamofascists".

"Al-Queda has connections to the PLF, and other organizations that have been recruited, trained and controlled by Iraqi intelligence inside Iraq. This group is active in the Palestinian Authority, and serves as a liason between Arafat and Hussein. Both Iraq and Al-Queda have links to the Al-Ansar terrorist organization, operating in Northern Iraq against the Kurds."

By indirect links everything can be linked to everything

"With the likely meeting in prauge between Atta and Iraqi intelligence"

which is not based on any serious information.The fact that even the CIA does not find it belivevable and Bush is not using it for propaganda is telling.

" it becomes much more difficult for me to believe that Iraq has not at some point harbored and or trained al-quada operatives."

Like Florida you means?

"Hussein's intentions are clearly hostile to US interests"

Of course

"the failed attack on Bush 41 being the primary example"

Bush 41? Oh Christ do not tell me that they have started to clone him...

"he is trying to accquire weapons of mass destruction"

Like your ally Musharraf.

Sorry,as far as war on terrorism goes this will be merely an hole in the water.It might boost US interests and,as a side effect,improve the situation of the Iraqui people.That is all.Saddam and Osama would probably kill each other if they met.
They are like two cocks in the same hen-roost.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-06 05:41pm

Sorry. George Bush Sr was the 41st pres of the united states, while Junior is number 43. So Bush Sr is Bush 41, and Junior is Bush 43. Should've clarified that.

And there is a difference between knowingly harboring and supporting terrorists like Iraq has been doing, and having sleeper cells set up in your country without your knowledge.

Pakistan is not party to the nuclear agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons have certainly helped destabalize and disrupt South Asia, the Pakistanis did not openly violate agreements that they had signed on to. Iraq is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has violated it's agreement not to pursue development of WMDs thoroughly, and has violated strong UN Security Council resolutions that required Iraq's complete disarmament.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-06 05:57pm

"And there is a difference between knowingly harboring and supporting terrorists like Iraq has been doing"

Iraq has knowingly harbored and supported Al Quaeda cells?
I missed that.
Ah, of course the Palestinians.Which are linked to the 9/11...how?
Before answering "they are all terrorists" you should try to stop some of your compatriots from sending helps to the IRA.
It is much better if you give yourselves some more practical goal.Because if you think to go to war against terrorism in general you will never win.Never.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2002-12-06 05:58pm

LSTV, stfu you stupid trolling bastard. You just dont shut up, do you?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-09 09:20am

At this point, unless some new information surfaces, this debate can go in circles. But these groups in my opinion are probably connected to each other in some way, and these groups don't operate independent of each other. You mentioned the IRA, for example. Who would have thought that they would get the massive support from Libya that they did, or that several of their operatives would get picked up after they'd been hiding out in Cuba? The Al Ansar group operating in northern Iraq could very well have served as a meeting point between Iraqi and Al Queda operatives, and it is just my personal conviction that Iraq has probably harbored them at some point in time. There is already a connection between Iraq and the palestinian groups, and I think Al Queda would be interested in establishing a bigger link with the palestinians, largely because taking part in the Israeli-palistine conflict would increase Al Queda's own legitimacy in the eyes of other Islamic fundamentalists.

You must at the very least agree, that there is a very strong case for Saddam's removal based on humanitarian concerns. He has garnered the reputation as the most brutal dictator of our time, and his human rights record alone earns his worldwide condemnation.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-09 02:11pm

irishmick79 wrote: You must at the very least agree, that there is a very strong case for Saddam's removal based on humanitarian concerns

That is for sure.However you are not going to cut his throat (which is precisely what he deserves) "for humanitarian concerns".Chances are that you are going to support similar dictators as soon the convenience will arise,so if I was you I would avoid to use this as justification,unless you decide to mantain coherence on this issue,which with Bush in charge seems unlikely.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-09 02:34pm

I'm not so sure. I think Hussein would probably wind up in the Hague if they ever caught him. There's probably more than enough evidence to present war crimes charges, and Bush is smart enough to realize that any effort to deport Hussein to the US and seek the death penalty would turn into a diplomatic disaster. Granted, the US may move on to support another dictatorial regime somewhere else. But I think that a successful prosecution of Hussein by the UN war crimes tribunals at the hague would be a huge boost to the tribunal's legitimacy.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-09 03:24pm

irishmick79 wrote:I'm not so sure. I think Hussein would probably wind up in the Hague if they ever caught him. There's probably more than enough evidence to present war crimes charges, and Bush is smart enough to realize that any effort to deport Hussein to the US and seek the death penalty would turn into a diplomatic disaster. Granted, the US may move on to support another dictatorial regime somewhere else. But I think that a successful prosecution of Hussein by the UN war crimes tribunals at the hague would be a huge boost to the tribunal's legitimacy.

Last time I checked the US was against the international court.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-09 03:38pm

We did turn over Milosevic to the court. For the US to get more support for invading Iraq, I think one of the concessions they're going to have to make is to turn Saddam over to the UN if we get him.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-12-10 02:25pm

But even assuming that all those connections are real,still attacking Iraq would not be a significant blow against terrorism.Afghanistan was by far a major hub for terrorism and yet despite the war waged on it Bin Laden is (probably) alive and kicking ass.So any attack on Iraq which in comparison is certainly a minor base (if it is a base in first place) would have only a minimum direct impact on terrorism,which might be counterweighted by an increased popular support for it.
And unless you plan to invade the whole ME + North Africa and eventually chunks of Asia it is difficult to imagine to eliminate all their bases.
This without mentioning their ability to hide themselves,like they have demonstrated in the USA.Even if for the sake of discussion you invaded Saudi Arabia how could you be sure to find the terrorists hidden among the population? Are you sure that your occupation forces in Saudi Arabia would fare better than the FBI at home? Because terrorists usually do not go out in the middle of the desert with a t-shirt with "I am a terrorist,kill me" written on it,so you can drop a JDAM on them...
Of course in such a case they would be more limited in their capabilities but targets for them would also be available literally behind the corner of the street in the form of US occupation forces.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-10 02:43pm

You're right. Even if the proposed operations in Iraq go splendidly well, the terrorist groups would more than likely just find another country or territory to take root in. But the situation in the ME would still improve. By taking hussein out of the equation, you eliminate a HUGE state benefactor for terrorist groups. Having the protection of state governments like Iraq or Syria is a huge boost to recruitment and training efforts of several groups, and only serves to prolong the conflict in the middle east. By removing that cover, by taking a guy like Hussein out of the equation, you make it that much harder for these groups to find places to thrive and survive. It won't solve the whole problem, but it would definitely make life easier when trying to pursue these guys.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2002-12-10 02:52pm

But if you eliminate Saddam you create a power vacuum, if this happened Fundimentalists could seize power & things would be much worse.

At the moment Saddam is a buffer in that area...

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-12-10 03:01pm

DocHorror,

If Saddam were assassinated, or if he were to die in an air strike yeah, that would probably be the case. But if the US actually invades, you'll have a shitload of US firepower in the region making sure that a more favorable outcome occurs. Sure, the fundamentalists will probably raise some hell, but they won't be able to directly challenge US firepower, and thus wouldn't be able to challenge any government that a coalition chooses to establish.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Saddam really a threat?

Is saddam a threat?

Saddam Da Badass