Was Saddam really a threat to our National Security

[ElCubano]

Quote from hapaboy:

Uh-oh, get ready for a torrent of "well-if-we-can-free-Iraq-why-don't-we-free-every-other-nation-with-a-dictator?" posts.

very good point......seeing that we have a much closer case of human rights violations ( 90 miles from key west )....this would probably have been cheaper and easier........cmon Hapaboy, we both know thats not the reason we went in.....that was just a by-product.....why does no one talk about the reasons we went to WAR??? WMD period the end everything else is just for the polls.....how can one say it was for the good of the Iraqis when Papa Bush gave them hope once before to only stand by and watch the autrocities being committed.....HOG WASH...if any of you guys belive this i have swamp land in the everglades I want you to look at....

 

[oddiduro]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Now that we have found Saddam cowering in a hole, never having used any WMD against the U.S. before, during, or after the war and his eventual capture.....

Was Saddam ever really a threat significant enough and sufficient to spend the lives, money, and time we have spent so far?

No.

But he was taken down because he was a considered a rogue state.

Look up the definition of rogue state, then apply it widely. You would be very surprised at who falls under this list. You might want to particularly check nations that routinely violate UN resolutions, and fund dictators that terrorize thier people, and start there.

Finally, if the hijackers were Saudi nationals, and Osama is a Saudi national, well, I'll let you speculate on that.

Regards
Oddi

 

[oddiduro]

Quote from Magna:

The first time I travelled outside this country I was amazed at the foreign press and how much doesn't get reported or covered in the USA. I realize neocons dismiss most of the media as the "liberal press" (unless, of course, it agrees with their position and then they quote it profusely) but I have found almost all the media in this country to be remarkably and consistently jingoistic, rarely asking the difficult questions, the obvious questions (AK-47's anyone?), the unpopular questions, for fear of being labelled "unpatriotic". It's no surprise that the same labelling happens repeatedly on this chat board too. I'm always reminded of what Hermann Goering (Hitler's Reich-Marshall) said at the Nuremberg Trials:

"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."

Noam Chomsky has written several books about this. Most people are not aware of just how controlled news media is.

 

[Nolan-Vinny-Sam]

Quote from TriPack:

With regards to the ones blowing up Israeli citizens, the money list is incompletely known but Saddam is known to have paid 30 million to terrorists and the families of suicide bombers. Cutting off that flow of money should help the situation in Israel, but Iraq was only one source.

The other sources of funds are some in the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, and the European Union (about 150 million last year) by way of Arafat to the Palestinians. There are no doubt other nameless fundamentalists or sympathizers with money like Bin Laden who fund terrorists. All should be treated like terrorists.

For some reason every administration for the last 20 years has tiptoed around Saudi Arabia, which is probably the biggest source of funds though I have no hard #s on that.

ahahahaha
TriPack & hapaboy, A.K.A. Dumb & dumber
yer mean to tell me WE WENT TO WAR FOR ISRAEL now???
better check with your drug dealer, the batch you got was spoiled:eek:
from 9-11 (you are the morons who believed saddam did it) to non existent WMD's, to a fraud for imminent threat, and now ISRAEL?:eek: LSD is no good for ya and it shows I go help brother Mavman "move" for a week, can't leave you alone anymore. Yer spewing crap all over the place

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from hapaboy:

The same argument can be made for the umpteen "missions of mercy" this country has made over the past century.

America has been a very generous country, but usually we have a primary interest that exceeds our generosity.

It has been "good business" to be generous, which really betrays the concept of true generosity.

Maybe that is why the term "ugly American" and "Yankee Go Home" are so common abroad.

We didn't have to get involved in WWI, but we did.

We were neutral for 3 years before entering WWI.
On April 6, 1917, by a vote of 82 to 6 in the Senate and 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives, the United States of America declared war on Germany.

Wilson strongly believed that the American system would save the world, meaning:



1. American economic goods

2. America's democratic political structure

3. America's blend of morality and Christianity

Wilson stated:

"When properly directed, there is no people in the world not fitted for self-government." Note the caveat, "when properly directed." Wilson saw the U.S. as the rightful and natural director. He was determined to provide that direction in a framework where morality, democracy and economics were closely related. Wilson believed that other nations of the world had to look to the U.S. as an example , at the same time America was dependent on the rest of the world, mostly for economic markets. The world market must act as the new frontier for the American system. Wilson was determined to direct the affairs of other nations so that they could eventually achieve self-government, as long as this government was based on the American model, and he was even more willing to intervene in other countries than Roosevelt. For instance, he sent U.S. troops to Mexico to intervene in their civil war (1913-1917). When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, Wilson tried to keep the U.S. neutral, but Germany repeatedly violated America's neutral status. When America finally entered the war in 1917 it was because, as Wilson stated,


"The world must be made safe for democracy."


We didn't have to rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII, but we did.

Comparing Japan and Europe after WWII and Iraq is laughable.

Both Japan and Europe were highly industrialized nations, capable of being rebuilt to our economic gain.

Iraq highly industrialized? Not even close.

But they do have the 2nd largest known oil reserve. Imagine that!


We didn't have to get involved when North Korea invaded the South but we did.

Korea is known by many historians as a failure by the U.S. Another war we didn't win.

We didn't have to start programs like the Peace Corps, A.I.D., etc. and become the major donor of the bloated UN behemoth, but we did.

I support the Peace Corps....Notice it isn't the War Corps?

Aide to dependent children I also support, it is about saving and improving lives, not a military conflict.

The UN is about business and our own sense of economic expansion. When the UN didn't support our goal of conquering Iraq, we ignored them. We act in a manner that suits our policies first, not any sense of a subordinate position to a "world" government that we are not in control of.

We didn't have to maintain the strongest military in the world after the Cold War ended, but we did, and thank goodness.

Yes, during the Clinton administration, we maintained our position as the strongest military in the world. I support this, who wouldn't?

Who else was going to stop Saddam when he marched into Kuwait? France? Germany? Such decisions cost hundreds of billions. Do you consider those actions irresponsible?

The Brits could have taken out Saddam on their own. The Gulf War was a simple military mission.

Hell, Israel could have handled Saddam if we had let them.

Our international aid amount has surpassed Japan and we are again the biggest donor of foreign aid. Beyond what our government gives out, Americans privately donate 3 TIMES that amount for foreign aid every year.

Yes, Americans make private donations. What people do in private is their own business, right? It has nothing to do with the government, nor should it have an impact on policy. There is a difference between public and private.

Shame on us for donating that money when he could have used it here in the good ole US of A for things like paying the eternally-on-welfare and more prisons to ensure our 2 million criminals are well fed and entertained.

More of your sarcastic tripe. Useless.

As for insecure borders, pollution, Wall Street scandals, health care, a bad educational system, etc., yeah, that's all Bush's fault. Of course.

I challenge you to demonstrate where I have said it is Bush's fault.

It is Bush's responsibility to solve the problems he inherited and it is his fault what happens in Iraq as he instigated the process there.

Rolling back so many of the pollution laws to support expansion of big business is also his fault.

News flash: There will ALWAYS be "more important things to take care of here at home." Domestic problems will never go away. We could withdraw entirely from the international stage and we would still have these problems. Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it.

Throwing money at roads, libraries, infrastructure, alternative energy sources, conservation of energy, etc. does solve problems.

Our infrastructure in this country is slowly crumbling, while we throw billions of dollars at Iraq.

Apparently as you see it, the liberal message of helping your fellow man as much as possible is extented only to benefit the citizens of these United States.

When my immediate family is taken care of, then I have the luxury of attending to my fellow man.

 

[ElCubano]

 

[DTK]

(lol)

Quote from ElCubano:

 

[Nolan-Vinny-Sam]

Quote from ElCubano:

bwahahaha.. reminds me of my 2 questions.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

America has been a very generous country, but usually we have a primary interest that exceeds our generosity.

It has been "good business" to be generous, which really betrays the concept of true generosity.

Maybe that is why the term "ugly American" and "Yankee Go Home" are so common abroad.

Call it what you will but it does not negate the fact that we have indeed given billions in foreign aid.

We were neutral for 3 years before entering WWI.
On April 6, 1917, by a vote of 82 to 6 in the Senate and 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives, the United States of America declared war on Germany.

When America finally entered the war in 1917 it was because, as Wilson stated,


"The world must be made safe for democracy."

What is your point? How is establishing a democracy in Iraq not a validation of Wilson's ideal? You ramble on giving a history lesson as you see it without saying anything. Apparently you believe the more you write, the more you are correct.

Comparing Japan and Europe after WWII and Iraq is laughable.

Is it now? We remove a brutal dictator from power, establish democracy, and occupy the nation in order to help rebuild it.

Both Japan and Europe were highly industrialized nations, capable of being rebuilt to our economic gain.

Iraq highly industrialized? Not even close.

But they do have the 2nd largest known oil reserve. Imagine that!

Shall we only assist industrialized nations? Are you that selfish? And it is precisely because of its oil and proximity to other nations with oil that we must ensure that Iraq never be able to threaten the world economy again.

Korea is known by many historians as a failure by the U.S. Another war we didn't win.

A failure? We prevented the South from being overrun, and quite possibly then Japan. That we did not conquer the North or Red China does not invalidate the importance of our intervention in that crisis.

More of your sarcastic tripe. Useless.

I support the Peace Corps....Notice it isn't the War Corps?

Careful, you're becoming SARCASTIC.

Aide to dependent children I also support, it is about saving and improving lives, not a military conflict.

Yes, but you didn't state that in your original post. You claimed we are wasting money in Iraq, much of which is used to help Iraqi children, when it could be used on domestic problems.

We act in a manner that suits our policies first, not any sense of a subordinate position to a "world" government that we are not in control of.

And thank goodness for that.

Yes, during the Clinton administration, we maintained our position as the strongest military in the world. I support this, who wouldn't?

. We barely maintained that position. Under Clinton we reduced our military manpower and equipment to dangerous levels. Bush I may have started the process, but Bill C. certainly more than rolled with the idea.

The Brits could have taken out Saddam on their own. The Gulf War was a simple military mission.

You show your ignorance yet again. A ridiculous claim. Without US leading the way and providing the bulk of the manpower and materiel, Saddam never would have left Kuwait. The British, sad to say, are at the state where they are best at aiding us or taking on third-world class military opponents, i.e. Argentina. Not a realistic proposal at all. Do you really think the Brits would have committed to such a venture without us fighting beside them?

Hell, Israel could have handled Saddam if we had let them.

How astute of you, but a less than brilliant idea. Had we let the Israelis do it, the ramifications would have been enormous. Syria and the rest of the Jew-hating Arab nations quite possibly would have jumped in, igniting a regional war instead of one restricted to the Iraq-Kuwaiti theater of operations. It would have inflamed the rest of the region and possibly could have led to WWIII. Why do you think Bush I and the other coalition forces tried so hard (and successfully) to persuade Israel to restrain herself?

It is Bush's responsibility to solve the problems he inherited and it is his fault what happens in Iraq as he instigated the process there.

Rolling back so many of the pollution laws to support expansion of big business is also his fault.

It is his responsibility to do the best he can. He can hardly be expected to solve all our nation's problems that have existed for decades.

If it is Bush's fault that Iraq has been freed and the seeds of democracy will be planted there, go ahead and blame him for being successful.

The whole pollution issue is extremely debatable. Here in Hawaii, for example, much is being made of cruise ships discharging treated wastewater that is near drinking-water quality several miles from shore, while the EPA allows 82 million gallons of near sewage quality effluent to go into the ocean 2 miles from shore. This has been ongoing through Democrat-led state legislators and while Bill C. was in office. It is not a one-way street.

Throwing money at roads, libraries, infrastructure, alternative energy sources, conservation of energy, etc. does solve problems.

Our infrastructure in this country is slowly crumbling, while we throw billions of dollars at Iraq.

No, throwing money does not always solve problems. We have thrown billions into education and welfare with few tangible results; often the system becomes more bloated and the end product is somehow students with lower test scores and growing ranks of welfare dwellers and their offspring eager to suck at the teat of Uncle Sam.

When my immediate family is taken care of, then I have the luxury of attending to my fellow man.

Now THAT is interesting, considering you are more than happy to allow innocent people to be murdered or raped - possibly members of your family - by released felons in ode to your beloved justice system.

Rank hypocrisy from you as usual.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:


yer mean to tell me WE WENT TO WAR FOR ISRAEL now???
better check with your drug dealer, the batch you got was spoiled:eek:
from 9-11 (you are the morons who believed saddam did it) to non existent WMD's, to a fraud for imminent threat, and now ISRAEL?:eek: LSD is no good for ya and it shows I go help brother Mavman "move" for a week, can't leave you alone anymore. Yer spewing crap all over the place

Where did I say we went to war for Israel, ya dolt?

And I have never said Saddam controlled the 9/11 event.

Clearly you are drunk and need to attend the AA events Rogue/Optional loves to quote so much.