RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.?

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

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

Message

philosophy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/11/2008 5:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Last time I read the decleration it stated, "Terrorists, and states that sponsored Terrorists". Saddam sponsored terrorists orginanisations like Hezbollah, and Hamas, therefore was a legitimate target...End of story Al Queda, and WMD decryers need not respond, we heard it all before. ...so would you support sanctions against all states that sponsor terrorism? Or reperations from states that have done so in the past?

subrob1967 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/11/2008 6:40:00 PM)
Yes, including Saudi Arabia

philosophy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/11/2008 8:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Yes, including Saudi Arabia ...would that also include the US?

meatcleaver -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 12:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin 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? Every military regime needs a Bogeyman, Hussein was a bogeyman for the time. What you have to ask, is who is going to be the next bogeyman, the reason to wage war wherever. But what is war really about, stopping someone from living or for commerce ? No, only ideological states need a bogeyman. Read the American constitution, that is American ideology and that is why America has always had a bogeyman. That is why Americans can be accused of being unAmerican, a concept which I don't think any other democracy has. Other ideological states have been the USSR, NAZI Germany, Revolutionary France and Napoleonic France, Franco's Spain, not a very edifying list but all required enemies, either internal, external or both. The ideology defines the bogeymen as other, with different values and not a true believer. That is why the US can justify fighting wars for peace, freedom and civilized values

subrob1967 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 1:03:34 AM)
Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civillain populations? And how should we sanction ourselves? Allowing the U.N. to try to sanction the U.S. will never fly, they're corrupt to the core. And if any countries really wanted to sanction us, they have the power with trade embargoes.

meatcleaver -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 1:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civillain populations? And how should we sanction ourselves? Allowing the U.N. to try to sanction the U.S. will never fly, they're corrupt to the core. And if any countries really wanted to sanction us, they have the power with trade embargoes. Your answer is revealing and one of the reasons for the US's low standing in the world. It believes in one rule for itself and another rule for everyone else.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 5:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civilian populations? WW2 fire bombing/atomic bombing of Tokyo and saturation bombing of Germany. I am not saying such things were wrong when considered in the context of War but they do correctly answer your question. I believe many civilians in Viet Nam were not larfing their little coolie hats off either This "terrorism" most definitely was wrong.. Saddam was not a threat to the West but he was threat to Israel and possibly Iran.

meatcleaver -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 5:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civilian populations? WW2 fire bombing/atomic bombing of Tokyo and saturation bombing of Germany. Surely terror bombing is always wrong? Let's not leave Britain out of WWII terror bombing, we led the way. The problem with terror bombing is that it rarely achieves a desired goal, it is an act of frustration and anger. Strategic bombing was largely ineffective and didn't destroy that much German industry, Germany industry ground more or less to a halt because of lack of resources and energy. It was a case of what do you do with all those bombers and aircrew? Why, bomb the shit out of the civilians and make them pay for supporting their dictatorship, even if many didn't.

DomKen -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 6:08:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civillain populations? And how should we sanction ourselves? Officially: Iraq now Nicaragua 1980's Vietnam 1960's Germany 1940's Japan 1940's to name a few Unofficially Northern Ireland 70's through to today All over central and South America by way of National Fruit about 1900 to 1930 Again to name a few

Marc2b -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 7:08:37 AM)
Damit! There should be some kind of automatic warning whenever a thread has been resurrected after having been dead for more than a few months. I looked at the first page and thought "Wow! Sinergy is back! And Domiguy too!!!! They've granted him a reprieve from his exile!" Then I saw the dates. Damit. Oh well, to answer the question, Saddam was not an immediate threat but he stood in the way of the "encircle Iran" strategy. That is what we have slowly been doing since 9-11. It has always been about Iran since day one.

Sanity -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 8:18:21 AM)
That reminds me of a joke. Q: What were Custer's last words? A: "They can't get away from us now men - they've got us surrounded." quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Damit! There should be some kind of automatic warning whenever a thread has been resurrected after having been dead for more than a few months. I looked at the first page and thought "Wow! Sinergy is back! And Domiguy too!!!! They've granted him a reprieve from his exile!" Then I saw the dates. Damit. Oh well, to answer the question, Saddam was not an immediate threat but he stood in the way of the "encircle Iran" strategy. That is what we have slowly been doing since 9-11. It has always been about Iran since day one.

StudFL -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 8:26:11 AM)
He's dead, get over it. We can discuss Hitler and his opposition to the west to if you'd like though...

philosophy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 10:06:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civillain populations? And how should we sanction ourselves? Unofficially Northern Ireland 70's through to today ...to be fair, private US citizens funding terrorism in NI is pretty much over now. However there are those still living that are responsible for extending that war. What i would like to know if Subrob favours going after these people or whether he thinks that US citizens get a pass from his high minded statement against terrorism a few posts back......

seeksfemslave -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 10:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civilian populations? WW2 fire bombing of Tokyo and saturation bombing of Germany. Surely terror bombing is always wrong? Let's not leave Britain out of WWII terror bombing, we led the way. The problem with terror bombing is that it rarely achieves a desired goal, it is an act of frustration and anger. Strategic bombing was largely ineffective and didn't destroy that much German industry, Germany industry ground more or less to a halt because of lack of resources and energy. It was a case of what do you do with all those bombers and aircrew? Why, bomb the shit out of the civilians and make them pay for supporting their dictatorship, even if many didn't. I'm not so sure terror bombing was wrong in WW2. Dont forget this struggle became an all out fight to the bitter end. In those circumstances you just do what you believe has to be done. This is why I do not condemn the atomic bombing of Japan Horrendous as it undoubtedly was. Had I have been an advisor in WW2 I would have certainly given "terror" bombing a "go" and then coldly assessed the results. Many industrial targets were attacked. Without checking I think lots of aircrew were lost trying to destroy ball bearing factories and oil installations.

popeye1250 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 10:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just exactly where did the U.S. sanction terrorism against civillain populations? And how should we sanction ourselves? Allowing the U.N. to try to sanction the U.S. will never fly, they're corrupt to the core. And if any countries really wanted to sanction us, they have the power with trade embargoes. Your answer is revealing and one of the reasons for the US's low standing in the world. It believes in one rule for itself and another rule for everyone else. Meat, the U.S. has a "low standing" in the world? Does that mean that we can end immigration because no-one wants to come here anymore? YEAH!!!!!!!!!! Gee, a "low standing" eh? So if I'm in Athens, Greece or Singapore and try to get a cab and they find out I'm an American it's, "No cab for you American, you have "low standing" in world!" Eh? How will I ever sleep at night?

kittinSol -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 11:00:36 AM)
Taxicabs everywhere are more than happy to take on American tourists, but they do worry they'll get paid, what with the state of the dollar and all [8D] .

popeye1250 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 11:09:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Taxicabs everywhere are more than happy to take on American tourists, but they do worry they'll get paid, what with the state of the dollar and all [8D] . Kittin, why is it that only those on the left try to make a mountain out of a molehill about the U.S.'s "standing" in the world? How about the "standing" of the Czeck Rep. or,....Kuala Lampur? Funny, they never bring up the "standing" of other countries, only the U.S., have you ever noticed that? Why is that? And, what can I as an American Citizen do to lower my country's "standing" in the world extra-govt even further?

philosophy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 11:11:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 what can I as an American Citizen do to lower my country's "standing" in the world extra-govt even further? ...i think you're doing your best.....[:D] ...of course you could always follow CL's example and just tell foreigners to shut up if you don't like the way they think.

popeye1250 -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 11:18:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 what can I as an American Citizen do to lower my country's "standing" in the world extra-govt even further? ...i think you're doing your best.....[:D] ...of course you could always follow CL's example and just tell foreigners to shut up if you don't like the way they think. Phil, we can always do more! "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Oh, I don't include You when I mention "The Left", you're very intelligent.

philosophy -> RE: Was Saddam Hussein a Threat to the U.S.? (9/12/2008 11:44:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 [Oh, I don't include You when I mention "The Left", you're very intelligent. ...shhh, or they wont let me in to the next liberal/pinko/socialist/commie/didisayliberal/whatever social gathering. Good booze.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875