Was Saddam really a threat to our National Security

ARogueTrader · Dec 17, 2003

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?

James Stock · Dec 17, 2003

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?

Yes.

Whomever voted no is probably reading the national enquirer for their political opinions.

Cutten · Dec 17, 2003

He couldn't directly threaten the US, however there was a reasonable chance he would assist terrorists in acquiring WMDs, and thus after 9/11 he became a possible long-term threat.

However, the same could be said of half the Middle East, N Korea, several African countries, even China.

James Stock · Dec 17, 2003

Quote from Cutten:

He couldn't directly threaten the US, however there was a reasonable chance he would assist terrorists in acquiring WMDs, and thus after 9/11 he became a possible long-term threat.

However, the same could be said of half the Middle East, N Korea, several African countries, even China.

None of the countries you mentioned lost a war to the US in the last 13 years, though, and then thumbed their nose at us for the next 10 years.

ARogueTrader · Dec 17, 2003

The key phrases in your comments are: "reasonable chance" and "possible long-term threat."

Are reasonable chance, and possible long term threat sufficient to justify preemption, hundreds of US soldier's lives, thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars?

Imagine that time, money, and energy being spent domestically.

If people stop and think about it now, it was 20 some guys and some box cutters that we got this whole thing rolling.

Really, any sane person can see over-reaction by Bush & Company, if no ulterior motives.

Quote from Cutten:

He couldn't directly threaten the US, however there was a reasonable chance he would assist terrorists in acquiring WMDs, and thus after 9/11 he became a possible long-term threat.

However, the same could be said of half the Middle East, N Korea, several African countries, even China.

ElCubano · Dec 17, 2003

Quote from ARogueTrader:

The key phrases in your comments are: "reasonable chance" and "possible long-term threat."

Are reasonable chance, and possible long term threat sufficient to justify preemption, hundreds of US soldier's lives, thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars?

Imagine that time, money, and energy being spent domestically.

If people stop and think about it now, it was 20 some guys and some box cutters that we got this whole thing rolling.

Really, any sane person can see over-reaction by Bush & Company, if no ulterior motives.

i agree....and 20 more guys can still do the same....so to answer your question...yes he was a threat , but not sufficient enough to warrant the cost being paid.....unless of course there are other reasons we really went to WAR.......

James Stock · Dec 17, 2003

Quote from ElCubano:

i agree....and 20 more guys can still do the same....so to answer your question...yes he was a threat , but not sufficient enough to warrant the cost being paid.....unless of course there are other reasons we really went to WAR.......

It befuddles me why some of you guys don't get it.

Two of the most prized US buildings were destroyed. That means war.

No matter what you turkeys say, Iraq was on the revenge list for 9/11. period.

ARogueTrader · Dec 17, 2003

We need to exact revenge on Saddam for two buildings?

That won't bring back the buildings nor the lives lost on 9/11.

Revenge thinking is primitive.

Israel has been taking revenge for how many years against their enemies, and does that stop the violence?

Quote from James Stock:

It befuddles me why some of you guys don't get it.

Two of the most prized US buildings were destroyed. That means war.

No matter what you turkeys say, Iraq was on the revenge list for 9/11. period.

maxpi · Dec 17, 2003

Saddam had Billions and he hates Jews. He was a big funding source for Hamas. Absolutely thrilled see him taken down. The funding of terrorism is a prime target, the sooner we can make it dry up the better. Some big funders of terrorism in Saudi Arabia were killed over the last couple of years. Good for President Bush, thank God the ultimate provocation came when we had a president that could get things done. If Gore had won the election we would be still in negotiations , the terrorists would still be planning even bigger attacks, etc.

Daxtrader · Dec 17, 2003

http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush