CTclay
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/6/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: CTclay
Let me make this reeeeeel simple, Chris -- I don't think ANY of the following FACTS can be disputed:
1. Saddam was brutal enough to kill on a mass scale and would have no scruples to kill any number of Americans, up to the millions, if he thought he could get away with it.
The United States supported his use of chemical weapons against Iran and turned a blind eye to his use on the Kurds. He was our buddy at the time.
Please provide proof we "supported" his use of chemical weapons. I've heard the statement about us turning a blind eye to the Kurds, but I've also heard we condemned what he did to the Kurds when we discovered what happened. We helped him in a war against Iran when Iran seemed to be the greater threat. Supporting a government that's a lesser threat against one that's considered a greater threat is a justifiable thing to do. The alternative might have been having a much greater threat from a victorious Iran, in which case we could have faced more danger than we did from Saddam. But even if we were totally wrong in everything we did, that doesn't justify doing the wrong thing now. "So's your old man" doesn't work in this kind of discussion.
quote:
Moreover, the CIA reported in the summer before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had no hostile plans towards the United States.
The guy who tried to get Bush Sr. assassinated had no hostile plans for us? The guy who's military was regularly firing on our planes had no hostile plans? The one who proclaimed his hatred for us? The CIA admitted it had no close sources to Saddam. Given all that we knew about him already, it's pretty damned obvious he was a threat. If anything, the CIA said it didn't know what his plans were.
The CIA, along with the intelligence services for France, Russia, the UK and Germany all said they thought Saddam had a WMD program and might well already have WMDs. That's what the intelligence services were saying.
quote:
quote:
3. Saddam had scientists in place, and money available and equipment at the ready to restart his nuclear program and may have restarted programs for biological and chemical weapons production. He'd come close to getting nukes before Isreal bombed his nuclear plant to smithereens in the early 90s.
Actually, Israel bombed the nuclear faciltiy in 1981. If Saddam was making any effort at creating a nuclear bomb after the first Gulf War he was going awfully slow... certainly Iran, North Korea and Pakistan have all outpaced Iraq.
That's right, it was in the early 80s. It's not so much the effort in creating a nuke that ALONE made Saddam the biggest threat to us, but the combination of a desire for WMDs, ruthlessness and connections with terrorists. The North Koreans are also a threat. The Pakistanis, if they had ties with the likes of Al Qaeda, were also a threat. They were supporting some terrorists in Kashmir, but they seem to have cut those ties, and they don't have ties with other radicals, it seems -- because groups like Al Qaeda are mad enough to try to assassinate the Pakistani leader. You didn't mention Iran, which is also a threat to us for essentially the same reasons Saddam was. Syria and Sudan also show signs of being a threat for the same reasons Saddam was, but they seem to be much lesser threats.
quote:
quote:
4. Saddam had put out feelers to Al Qaeda and was ready to work with them.
LOL! So did we!
Actually, the evidence of cooperation between the US and al-Qaeda is much stronger than evidence linking al-Qaeda to Saddam.
We supported Afghani resistance to the Soviets, not Al Qaeda. We never supported Al Qaeda directly. The point is that Saddam was ready to work with Al Qaeda or other terrorists to promote their terrorism. Saying "So did we!" is ridiculous. Please show this strong evidence that gives the U.S. a greater link to Al Qaeda. Were we trying to work with Al Qaeda so they could get WMDs and blow up innocents with them? Quit ignoring the point.
quote:
quote:
5. It doesn't take much imagination to think of what might happen if Saddam, this sworn enemy of the U.S., were allowed to continue in power, consorting with terrorists, eventually getting the opportunity to put WMDs into their hands.
Your response:
Actually I think only a very active imagination could come up with that scenario and think it plausible.
That's an interesting statement. Try backing it up.
When all the elements are in place for something to happen, why does it take "only a very active imagination" to be worried that just that something will happen? I've presented you with descriptions of the situation with Saddam that are widely accepted. Then I make a reasonable conclusion. And all you have to say in response that it takes "a very active imagination" to get to my point of view. You're using assertion in place of an argument. And your attitude shows no progress from the blinkered views we had of terrorist threats before 9/11. It's as if, for you, 9/11 had never taken place.
quote:
Saddam was a bad guy. Heck, he still is. But he wasn't a threat
Again, assertion instead of argument and responding to the facts at hand. You say he "wasn't a threat." I described a very obvious way in which he could threaten millions of Americans. If he helped get a WMD used against a U.S. city, then he might reasonably say to himself "If the Americans don't know where it came from, they might not attack me." Al Qaeda took quite a while to admit it was responsible for 9/11. Another point: Dictators are often in their own little world -- like Hitler and Stalin to name just two. They can make serious blunders by being too aggressive (like Hitler's invasion of Russia, or his decision to divert forces toward the Russian oil fields) or even too passive (Stalin not believing Hitler would strike, even when he had repeated reports that the invasion was being prepared).
quote:
and yes.... it was the sanctions that kept him in check.
Sanctions not only leaked like a sieve, they were on their way to being rejected. Ever hear of the oil for food scandal? Saddam was paying off people to get weapons and luxuries sent into Iraq. And the Left was blaming the U.S. for starving children through the sanctions. The sanctions were unworkable in the long run.
You mentioned earlier that his nuke program was slow. Sanctions were most of the reason for that. But he still had everything in place and ready to go, and those sanctions wouldn't have been around forever.
quote:
The invasion of Iraq was done because it was deemed an 'easy' victory. And a chance for Bush to flex American muscle in the area. It was done for strategic reasons, and not because of an imminent threat.
You write as if 9/11 had never taken place and as if we have nothing to fear from WMDs or terrorism or dictators who let power get to their heads. You live in a much more pleasant world than the real one.
|
RE: A nation out of control - 
Profile
So did we! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread