Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


dcnovice -> Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 7:52:54 PM)

We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. He was a brutal tyrant, he surely hankered for WMD (whether or not he possessed them), he invaded Kuwait, and so forth.

But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq.

So I'm wondering not about what Joe Wilson thought or who outed Valerie Plame but about the key, core question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S.? If so, what form might that threat have taken? How imminent was it?

What do you think and why?





farglebargle -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 7:54:44 PM)

No. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States.





Sinergy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 8:08:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq.



Carter's secretary of state made an amusing comment to John Stewart.

"What did they (the Bush administration who viewed Iraq as an imminent threat) think they were going to do, swim the Atlantic and invade Miami?"

Took John Stewart a moment to recover, and Brezinzki said "Perhaps we should let you do the comedy and I will stay the expert on world affairs."

Sinergy




sub4hire -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 8:14:05 PM)

I don't believe he was ever a threat.




domiguy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 8:17:09 PM)

I get amazed at the over reaction to a handfull of idiots that were unfortunately able to fly planes into our buildings....

We see the threads continuously about the problem regarding illegal immigration and how our borders are like sieves...It would only stand to reason that since this is the case that we would be experiencing suicide bombers on a continual basis.....Just food for thought...Oh I almost forgot we are keeping the "terrorists" overseas by engaging in this war....lol...

Is it still being called  "The War on Terror?"....What a joke.




caitlyn -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 8:41:01 PM)

Kuwait would say that Saddam was a threat to them, and they are friendly with the United States. Iraq would say that Kuwait was drilling for oil under their country, and was sitting on land that was theirs to begin with.
 
Saddam a threat to the United States ... maybe. Some say he tried to assassinate a former President of the United States.
 
Either way, there was a better way to handle it ... like a true Byzantine. After the first war, smart people could have "allowed" Saddam to see the error of his ways, and save a little face with his people by getting some free stuff from the United States. Give Saddam some new military hardware, to replace all the stuff we destroyed. Dependency for spare parts and training, is the whole idea here. Walmart, MsDonalds, medicine ... what a great idea. Saddam gets to look like a hero at home, and comes to the conclusion that getting American shit, is better than getting shit on by Americans.
 
Reaching out to someone we just thumped the fuck out of, is an American tradition. [;)]




cyberdude611 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:25:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. He was a brutal tyrant, he surely hankered for WMD (whether or not he possessed them), he invaded Kuwait, and so forth.

But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq.

So I'm wondering not about what Joe Wilson thought or who outed Valerie Plame but about the key, core question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S.? If so, what form might that threat have taken? How imminent was it?

What do you think and why?




Milosevic was also not a threat to the US. Vietnam was not a threat. Neither was Korea, Granada, Panama, etc...

Even back in WW2, Hitler did not want to go to war against the United States. And the American people did not want to go to war against him either. Hitler did not fire the first shot, Japan did and some people say the US provoked it. And before Pearl Harbor, Americans considered the Nazis to be Europe's problem and that the US shouldn't be involved.

You want to go back further, the US and Britain provoked the Germans many times prior to the first world war. Read up on the RMS Lusitania. The US was sending ammunition to the Brits in the storage area of a commercial oceanliner. The Germans sank the ship and the media in the US went wild with the story claiming the Germans intentionally murdered innocent people. It changed public opinion overnight.

How about further back? The USS Maine in the Havana harbor? You might want to read up on that. You might also want to read up on how the Mexican-American war was actually started.




dcnovice -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:29:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. He was a brutal tyrant, he surely hankered for WMD (whether or not he possessed them), he invaded Kuwait, and so forth.

But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq.

So I'm wondering not about what Joe Wilson thought or who outed Valerie Plame but about the key, core question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S.? If so, what form might that threat have taken? How imminent was it?

What do you think and why?




Milosevic was also not a threat to the US. Vietnam was not a threat. Neither was Korea, Granada, Panama, etc...

Even back in WW2, Hitler did not want to go to war against the United States. And the American people did not want to go to war against him either. Hitler did not fire the first shot, Japan did and some people say the US provoked it. And before Pearl Harbor, Americans considered the Nazis to be Europe's problem and that the US shouldn't be involved.

You want to go back further, the US and Britain provoked the Germans many times prior to the first world war. Read up on the RMS Lusitania. The US was sending ammunition to the Brits in the storage area of a commercial oceanliner. The Germans sank the ship and the media in the US went wild with the story claiming the Germans intentionally murdered innocent people. It changed public opinion overnight.

How about further back? The USS Maine in the Havana harbor? You might want to read up on that. You might also want to read up on how the Mexican-American war was actually started.


All very interesting, cyberdude, but also a complete evasion of the question.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:40:11 PM)

Saddam was far less of a threat than Al Queda was at the time.  Saddam had been taught the lesson that the US can and would invade and that he was powerless to stop us.

Unlike Al Queda, he was the exact sort of target the US excels at dealing with.

He needed his "filthy jew", his "terrorist", his mythical threat and reason for all that ailed him.  We served that goal perfectly.  He could rant and rail, make threats and know we would respond as long as his actions were not tangible.

That of course is why he had nothing to do with Al Queda, he knew they were not worried about the US and were determined to strike America in a way that would guarantee a response.  Not only that, there was the fact that Al Queda was diametrically opposed to his rule and wanted Iraq for themselves.

So, Saddam was an evil bastard who gassed the same Kurds our other allies the Turks enjoy killing.  He killed the Shia after Bush's daddy sucked and then abandoned into revolting against him. 

So, instead of spending the effort to ensure Afghanistan was secured and a beacon of hope to the ME, they invaded Iraq prematurely and without a plan.  Instead of dealing with the countries actually involved in 9/11 and supporting Al Queda, we invade Iraq.  So even if you think Saddam was  threat, he at least was a target we could put pressure on, now we have a massive country that is out of control and we have created far more enemies and support for Al Queda than even the most nutty of right wingers claimed he did.




cyberdude611 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:42:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. He was a brutal tyrant, he surely hankered for WMD (whether or not he possessed them), he invaded Kuwait, and so forth.

But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq.

So I'm wondering not about what Joe Wilson thought or who outed Valerie Plame but about the key, core question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S.? If so, what form might that threat have taken? How imminent was it?

What do you think and why?




Milosevic was also not a threat to the US. Vietnam was not a threat. Neither was Korea, Granada, Panama, etc...

Even back in WW2, Hitler did not want to go to war against the United States. And the American people did not want to go to war against him either. Hitler did not fire the first shot, Japan did and some people say the US provoked it. And before Pearl Harbor, Americans considered the Nazis to be Europe's problem and that the US shouldn't be involved.

You want to go back further, the US and Britain provoked the Germans many times prior to the first world war. Read up on the RMS Lusitania. The US was sending ammunition to the Brits in the storage area of a commercial oceanliner. The Germans sank the ship and the media in the US went wild with the story claiming the Germans intentionally murdered innocent people. It changed public opinion overnight.

How about further back? The USS Maine in the Havana harbor? You might want to read up on that. You might also want to read up on how the Mexican-American war was actually started.


All very interesting, cyberdude, but also a complete evasion of the question.


No, I thought it was pretty clear that the US doesn't base its wars on the enemy's threat level. Most of our enemies were not a direct threat to the people of the United States.




dcnovice -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:45:10 PM)

So you're saying Saddam was not a threat?




Sinergy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:45:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Kuwait would say that Saddam was a threat to them, and they are friendly with the United States. Iraq would say that Kuwait was drilling for oil under their country, and was sitting on land that was theirs to begin with.



Iraq might also say that the part of their country cut off and separated by the British 90 or so years ago to form Kuwait was imperialistic and unreasonable.

Kuwait might turn around and say that the only reason Iraq controlled them prior to the British was because their warlord had more guns and camels.

It is really important to view events from a historical perspective.

quote:



Saddam a threat to the United States ... maybe. Some say he tried to assassinate a former President of the United States.
 

 
Are you suggesting that Saddam was the second gunner on the grassy knoll?






SimplyMichael -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:51:50 PM)

cyberdude611,
 
But at least those countries were the RIGHT ones.  Imagine if to avenge Diem Bien Phu we had invaded Laos?  Or after Pearl Harbor we attacked Brazil? 
 
Saudi Arabain citizens and nationals planned, funded, and staffed the 9/11 attacks.  In fact, if you look at the list of Bush's allies in the ME, they are mostly the rest of the countries that helped out.
 
Okay, let me change my opening statement, imagine after Pearl Harbor instead of declaring war on the Axis Countries, we attacked Russia since they were nearby and were an enemy of Al Queda.  THAT would be a closer parallel to what Bush chose to do.




cyberdude611 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:53:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

So you're saying Saddam was not a threat?


My point was that by looking at our past.... I don't think it matters. We go to war based on potential threats. Saddam was a potential threat.

You see a bully picking on kids over on the other side of the playground. Do you go over and get involved? You probably dont. But if that bully starts picking on your friends, or starts getting closer to you...you have a tendancy to become defensive. And you now view that bully as a potential threat. The only question remains is if you wait to see if he makes a move towards you, or you walk over there and punch him in the mouth right now. Bush and the Congress decided to do the latter. Even though the bully may not have ever walked over here.




caitlyn -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:55:52 PM)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm




dcnovice -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 9:56:24 PM)

"The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."

George W. Bush on Iraq, February 2003


Source: The White House

Regardless of what happened in the past (which, as a one-time history major, I find fascinating), this war was billed as a response to a theat to America.




dcnovice -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 10:06:11 PM)

quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm


We have our reference to Bill Clinton, so we're now an official CM political thread!




luckydog1 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 10:43:16 PM)

And as usuall when the recent past and actions of the previous president are brought up, the left refuses to respond and goes into silly mode...

Clinton considered Saddam a huge threat....fact

Why did he magically cease to be a threat in 01?

And why did we bomb the al shifa complex in Sudan??  doubt I will get a response.




RPutnamJr -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 10:55:58 PM)

What cyberdude says is correct. Most wars the USA has fought in have not been truely honorable wars.

Look at the Revolutionary War...we basically invented guarrilla warfare. When we stood head to head with the British army we usually lost our ass. So what did we do, we hit and ran, then hid within the general population. Maybe not to the extent that the Iraqi's do nowdays but consider the miniute men. Simple farmers that in a minutes notice can form up a militia and then melt back into the general population. But what was the causes of the war? Taxation among other things.

Then look at the War of 1812. Again militarily speaking we usually lost on land. But still followed the tactics of the Revolutionary War. Now you could say that we did fight for the right to be independant and to be treated as such. After all it was the British that impressed our sailors into service illegally.

The Barbary Wars. It was the piracy on the high seas that we fought against. After all if you did not pay "protection" to the Barbary pirates then they would attack your ships. We chose not to pay and thus do something about it. Where as other european countries either paid or did nothing about the problem, turning a blind eye since it wasn't their problem.

The Mexican American War, was a war fought over the territorial integrity of the nation. Was the boarder at the Rio Grande river or the other river? But you could say the war was truely about American expansionism into Mexican territory. After all we did annex a huge portion of the Western US after the war. I would like to point out that Texas did get their independance prior to the war and California did declare their independance just prior to the outbreak of the war. Although both were heavily influenced by Americans, thus fulfilling the Manifest Destiny Doctrine.

Next comes the Civil War...think of the distruction caused by Sherman's march to the sea. The burning of Atlanta. The seige of Vicksburg. The maurading on both sides in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Nobody cried about the civilians caught up in the war. Or even how inhumanly captured prisoners were treated.

Then consider the various Indian Wars. And the saying of the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Nobody looking back would say genocide was uncommon when dealing with Indians at the time.

After that is the Spanish American War. There again we were not necessarily fighting for freedom of the world. We were fighting for our economic interests and the ability to project military power mostly into the Pacific. After all you had to have bases in order to refuel ships, both military and otherwise.

Next came WWI. We violated so many rules of neutrality especially when it came to supplying the British. WWI wasn't even started by the Germans yet they were punished the greatest because they were the best fighters during the war for the most part. The British and French economic and colonial interests to protect. To be honest though the USA did have economic interests to protect and was starting to flex our muscles as a military power. We though did not ask for anything territorial coming out of the war. Which makes us the first country to ever do so, we decided not to become a colonial power. And yes we did have colonies, Phillipines, Panama, Puerto Rico, just to name a few.

World War II, that again we did not act like a neutral power should. We spied on the Japanese, withheld vital materials while supplying their enemies, same with the Germans. Look at Lend/Lease...we gave the British and Russians and Chinese material. We even escorted the ships as far as Iceland so as to allow the British to concentrate their forces against the Germans in their home waters around Britain. These are not acts of a truely neutral country. Yet when we entered the war and won, what did we do? We again asked for nothing and in return rebuilt everything.

After that came the Korean War and Vietnam War, these were all products of the Cold War. The fear of communism. A result of Russia not giving up control of Eastern Europe, whether it was justified or not by fear of the West. Both sides feared each other and used that fear to justify our/their actions.

Genada, Panama, Gulf War I and II, Aftghanistan, etc, etc...why do we fight? For freedom? No. Because its the "right" thing to do? No. We fight for the same reasons why we fight all of our wars. We fight because it is in our countries best interest to fight the war. And in some ways you could argue that it is in the World's best interest too.

We have destroyed Colonialism. We give out freedom. And with freedom comes the ability to be free and decide your own future. What they do with it is their choice.

Are we truely in danger of being treatened? Depends upon who you ask. But to be honest, we as a nation have not truely been threatened since the War of 1812. Our second war of Independance. Was Iraq a threat? Are terrorists a threat? I would honestly say NO to both. BUT could they have been or could they be a threat in the future. YES. Given how much we are hated in some parts of the world. And how being the Big kid on the block, how everybody wants to punish us for their own country's ineptitude in providing for their basic needs.

Should we just sit by and wait? Or be proactive and try and change the world for the better? Personally I don't think we have gone far enough? But that is our country for you, only want to do things half way. Never willing ot actually go and correct a problem. After all where is the profit in actually correcting a problem? There is none, so we won't do it.

Look at the problems we have in our own country...healthcare, poverty, minimum wage, education, yet we think we can change the world for the better. Maybe we can maybe we cannot. Its our time Pax Americana to make our mark in history. Only history will tell how well we did or how much we made a mess of things. As much of a mess we have made, I would say we have done good things also. We are not perfect but we havn't been the worst either. After all we are only human.




dcnovice -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (3/20/2007 10:57:03 PM)

quote:

Clinton considered Saddam a huge threat....fact


Not to the point of going to war with him. In 1993, we made a single, specific strike in response to a very specific action (the assasination attempt on Bush 41).

quote:

Why did he magically cease to be a threat in 01?


I'm still not sure how serious a threat he ever was to the U.S. That's partly why I posed the question.

quote:

And why did we bomb the al shifa complex in Sudan??


Maybe this is liberal obtuseness, but isn't Sudan on a completely different continent from Iraq? How is it linked to Saddam Hussein?

quote:

doubt I will get a response


I took a stab at responding. I'll note that you never actually answered my simple question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S. in 2003?




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875