Saddam was a threat

luv2run wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182537976533691.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Interesting considering this came from Saddam himself.

Stop confounding me with facts.

Facts? You believe everything you read in newspapers?

Piro of the FBI? You mean those who murdered 74 men, women and children at Waco?

How convenient to come up with a story to excuse Bush’s illegal invasion.

The very thought that a flake like Saddam could under any circumstances become a threat to the mighty USA is laughable.

No to 2012 wrote:

Facts? You believe everything you read in newspapers?

Piro of the FBI? You mean those who murdered 74 men, women and children at Waco?

How convenient to come up with a story to excuse Bush’s illegal invasion.

The very thought that a flake like Saddam could under any circumstances become a threat to the mighty USA is laughable.

No, what's laughable is that you refer to Saddam as insignificant and the U.S. as "mighty", thinking that we are invincible.

As the US spends virtually as much on military hardware as the rest of the world combined - if the US isn’t ‘mighty’ you should be asking what your tax-dollars are paying for.

I'm not saying that he wasn't ever going to be a threat, but can you say that he was an immediate threat to the USA. It sounds like we had some time to deal with Saddam and we might have saved a lot of lives and a lot of money had we tried to get some more countries to support us in an effort against him. Also, didn't we have other threats (Osama, North Korea, Iraq) that we might have wanted to have our military ready for should anything had happened? Maybe we would have ended up there eventually, but I think it's pretty obvious that Bush rushed into Iraq.

I guess Clinton's plan of just bombing Iraq from above, killing innocents was the moral course of action. I don't agree with the invasion, but it isn't limited to the current administration. If you're intellectually honest you'll recognize that.

This information is already contained in the Iraq Survey Group Report, which said that Saddam's motive for obtaining WMD in the future would be to deter Iran. That arguably would have been in the interests of the US.

As for nuclear weapons, that would have taken at least eight years, according to Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. Surely there were more prudent ways to deal with a prospective nuclear program than a preemptive invasion.

North Korea is a threat, Iran is a threat, Pakistan is a threat....what's your point?

We can call leaders a "threat" all we want but no country will ever be a "threat" to us. The real threats are the organized few such as the SAUDI citizens who attached us on 9/11. I don't see us carpet bombing that country any time soon. The only attacks on the US have come from a few select fanatics.

Alan

Patrick Russell wrote:

I guess Clinton's plan of just bombing Iraq from above, killing innocents was the moral course of action. I don't agree with the invasion, but it isn't limited to the current administration. If you're intellectually honest you'll recognize that.

I'm not exactly sure what "it" is that you are referring to, but this article was about our current war with Iraq, which I feel Bush was overly eager to start. The US has done things under both republican and democratic administrations that I don't really agree with. I never mentioned Clinton's actions because that didn't have anything to do with the article.

No to 2012 wrote:

Facts? You believe everything you read in newspapers?

Piro of the FBI? You mean those who murdered 74 men, women and children at Waco?

How convenient to come up with a story to excuse Bush’s illegal invasion.

The very thought that a flake like Saddam could under any circumstances become a threat to the mighty USA is laughable.

I bet that you believe no plane crashed into the Pentagon either. This has been reported elsewhere. I am sure that you have some documentation to refute Piro's statement. I am guessing the sessions were videotaped.

Waco happened in 1993 under a Democrat president. Just remember that. Piro was not even in the FBI at the time according to one report I read at CBS News.

Also, everyone KNOWS CBS News is a lackey for the Bush Administration. Every morning CBS News people get marching orders from the Bush White House.

The root of 911 is the occupation of Palestine. Bin Ladin can recruit from a pool of 2 Billion Muslims who support the liberation of Palestine. The occupation is 100% paid for by U.S. Taxpayers. The Congress can end the occupation by not funding Israel anymore. It's that easy to bring peace to the Middle East. Re-unify Palestine and 90% of the terrorists will go back to the bazaars and engineering school.

luv2run wrote:

Also, everyone KNOWS CBS News is a lackey for the Bush Administration. Every morning CBS News people get marching orders from the Bush White House.

I think you mean Fox News.

But really, this is retarded. ALL the article says is that Saddam wanted to resume the program! We knew that the guy wanted to have them.

Everyone and their mom wants WMDs.

That is completely different from actually being engaged in getting them, or actually having them.

Japan, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russian, etc. all have WMDs. So why the hard on for Iran and Iraq ? I don't get it. Why not just trade with them. They can't hurt us. It's too far away.

There is nothing new in that article. Of course Iraq wanted to re-start their WMD programs, but that was not a reason for the US to invade Iraq. Iraq did not have WMDs at the time of the invasion due economic sanctions and military actions (air space control) combined with UN weapons inspector. In other words, the existing programs were working to keep the Iraq WMD programs in check. The US and Great Britain had no good data to assume WMDs, the war was rash and irresponsible, that's why most of Europe was against it. Turns out they were right. All that we've accomplished in Iraq is to allow for an eventual civil war likely followed by a Shia controlled Sharia based government heavily influenced by Iran. Great.

What you gonna do when the neighboorhood turns bad ? Move out. Many from the ghettos picked themselves up got an education and moved out of South Central L.A. Now it's almost 1/2 Mexicans in South Central. If you Jews can't live in peace in Israel, then why stay, get the hell out, and move somewhere else, back to Europe is one place, Hitler and Stalin are dead. Don't make U.S. youngsters die for your lost dream of Israel. Get out and go back to Russia and Germany, that's where you are from anyways. Or move to the U.S., there's plenty of room here for Mexicans already, a few more Jews won't spoil things for most people.

Iran so far hasn’t got WMD and the fact that Pakistan has them should be a cause for concern to the West.

Not only do Muslims believe that we infidels (meaning everyone not a Muslim) are unworthy of living on this planet - they are the only religion that glorifies those who die in the act of killing as many infidels as possible. They go to paradise with many virgins serving their needs. If one believes that sort of nonsense, it’s no wonder that they get lots of volunteers, the miserable way they organise their lives on earth.

The same goes for a whole Muslim country that’s in the hands of the fanatics - which might happen soon with Pakistan. They would be willing to use their nuclear weapons and unlike ‘normal’ countries, so long as they managed to kill millions of unbelievers - they’d be quite willing to accept the martyrdom of most of their population.

Does anyone consider that Kofi Annan (sp) has done more for

peace in 2 days than George W. has done in his whole time as President.

If that's what the WSJ considers a "scoop," they've got bigger problems than being owned by Rupert Murdoch.

As Saddam said repeatedly, the WMD pretenses were for the benefit of the Iranians stupid, the Iranians.

Besides, if you want to talk about threats, Shrub's by far the biggest threat to Americans -- he's killed more of them than than Bin Laden and Saddam combined. And he's still out there -- oooaahahahahah!

Be afraid! Run for your lives! Better yet, write your congressman and insist he throw even more of your taxes into the Pentagon black hole of nonaccountability! Do your part to ensure that all those contractors in Northern Virginia continue to live in the manner to which they are accustomed!! Be very, very afraid!!!

so true but the faux news sheeple will eat up anything that still supports their increasingly obvious cowardice.you have these nut cases in red states who are completely and totally safe from any islamic terror attack (I mean what is there worth bombing south of the mason dixon line? maybe a nascar track?) Yet the citizens in the obvious targets (NYC for example) remain overwhelmingly democratic and steadfastly brave and resolute.

Anna Robick wrote:

If that's what the WSJ considers a "scoop," they've got bigger problems than being owned by Rupert Murdoch.

As Saddam said repeatedly, the WMD pretenses were for the benefit of the Iranians stupid, the Iranians.

Besides, if you want to talk about threats, Shrub's by far the biggest threat to Americans -- he's killed more of them than than Bin Laden and Saddam combined. And he's still out there -- oooaahahahahah!

Be afraid! Run for your lives! Better yet, write your congressman and insist he throw even more of your taxes into the Pentagon black hole of nonaccountability! Do your part to ensure that all those contractors in Northern Virginia continue to live in the manner to which they are accustomed!! Be very, very afraid!!!