Nuclear arms summit...

[Mikebits]

Did Saddam have WMD, most likely it seems the answer is no, so does this mean taking Saddam out was not necessary?

It is well known that Saddam perpetrated unspeakable acts of violence on his own people as the 5000 dead Kurdish fell victim to chemical attack under his regime. Another 400,000 that lay dead under his treachery are testament of a cruel madman.

Shortly after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait he is seen relishing at his handy work as he smugly lights his cigar and watches the eco-disaster of the burning oil fields.

It is also known that Saddam funded terrorist groups and provided training grounds. and let us not forget that declaration made by Saddam

"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Murder with incentive.
Clearly this man used his money to fund and fuel of a fire of hatred against the west.
Did this financier in terror need to be taken out? I would have to say most certainly so. Was the invasion in Iraq the right thing to do? I honestly don't know, answering this is beyond my scope.

 

[Hero999]

Lots of other dictators have been just as bad as Saddam but the US hasn't removed them from power - disliking another country's regime is no reason to declare war on them.

 

[BrownOut]

Lots of other dictators have been just as bad as Saddam but the US hasn't removed them from power - disliking another country's regime is no reason to declare war on them.

Thank you! I had a much more wordy response, but I'll leave it at your short, elegant one

 

[Mikebits]

Lots of other dictators have been just as bad as Saddam but the US hasn't removed them from power - disliking another country's regime is no reason to declare war on them.

Disliking a dictator is one thing but we are not talking about dislike. Saddam was a mass murderer of some half a million people. It is the worlds responsibility to intercede when genocide is being perpetrated on a peoples by a government acting criminally and to do otherwise is equally criminal.

 

[BrownOut]

Don't you find it the least bit odd that nobody cared about Saddam's murders, in Halabja, in Al-Anfal, the war with Iran, the human rights abuses, until Bush's re-election numbers started to tank? I'm sick of the government that doesn't really care about human rights abuses until they think it helps them get re-elected, and then all of a sudden, gets all religious about it. And even so, what was the purpose of bombing and firing missiles at Iraq's cities? How many common Iraqis were killed, maimed or displaced by the attacks? I'd say the totals run into the millions. It makes no sense to react to genocide by committing more genocide???? And who was more happy than anyone else that the US diverted from Afghanistan and sent the military it Iraq? The people who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, that's who.

 

[Mikebits]

Don't you find it the least bit odd that nobody cared about Saddam's murders, in Halabja, in Al-Anfal, the war with Iran, the human rights abuses, until Bush's re-election numbers started to tank? I'm sick of the government that doesn't really care about human rights abuses until they think it helps them get re-elected, and then all of a sudden, gets all religious about it. And even so, what was the purpose of bombing and firing missiles at Iraq's cities? How many common Iraqis were killed, maimed or displaced by the attacks? I'd say the totals run into the millions. It makes no sense to react to genocide by committing more genocide???? And who was more happy than anyone else that the US diverted from Afghanistan and sent the military it Iraq? The people who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, that's who.

How nice it is for you that people like me who served in the service of our nation have provided you with a blanket of freedom and protection, and without this you would not be able to freely mock those that afford you this opportunity to sit so proudly with your priggish demeanor.
And what makes you think the US government did not take notice of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war? I can personally speak on that as I recall floating in the Persian Gulf for 65 days under constant alert awaiting word to take action. As typical, the left wing liberals opted for a diplomatic solution and we see the outcome now.

As I stated above, I never said that an all out military assault was the thing to do, but I do believe that action was needed. And I do recall the US and the UN interceding during times of criminal genocide, Bosnia and Somalia comes to mind.

 

[BrownOut]

How nice it is for you that people like me who served in the service of our nation have provided you with a blanket of freedom and protection, and without this you would not be able to mock those that afford you this opportunity to sit so proudly with your priggish demeanor.

The US government AIDED Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war!!! We loaned Saddam a billion dollars and provided his with battlefield intelligence. The "left wing" liberals had absolutely no influence on that outcome. It ended with both armies exhausted and both countries bankrupt!

An all out military assault is what we got. Not because we were so concerned with human rights abuses. But because we could play the Star Spangled Banner while footage of bombs blowing the hell out of Bagdad showed on the background. And of course that GWB could make his carrier deck landing just and declare "mission accomplished" just before another 3 or 4 thousand more of America's fine men and women were killed in that awful place.

Despite my many years of service to my country, I never use that fact to disparage anyone else’s right to voice his opinion, no matter how priggish it might be. That’s the very right I spent all those years defending.

 

[Mikebits]

Okay, I think you got me on that one, I was thinking Iran, they both sound the same. So you were military?

 

[BrownOut]

10 years active duty, Air Defense Artillery. Shoot 'em down and sort 'em out on the ground

 

[HiTech]

Lots of other dictators have been just as bad as Saddam but the US hasn't removed them from power - disliking another country's regime is no reason to declare war on them.

Lest you forget Adolph Hitler! Can you imagine the state of the world today if he had been left alone to continue his European/African rampage?

 

[Hero999]

Lest you forget Adolph Hitler! Can you imagine the state of the world today if he had been left alone to continue his European/African rampage?

Lots of dictators far worse than Saddam have not been removed from power by the US.

Take North Korea's Dear Leader for example, if human rights was so important to the US, they should've taken him out after the support of his regime by the Russians ended but before he developed nuclear weapons.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but this is the one that immediately came to mind.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Take North Korea's Dear Leader for example, if human rights was so important to the US, they should've taken him out after the support of his regime by the Russians ended but before he developed nuclear weapons.

He doesn't have any oil!.

 

[BrownOut]

HA! I was thinking the same thing

 

[Hero999]

I don't get the hole oil theory, I believe that the war was illegal but I don't see the US looting the country of all its oil - it just doesn't add up.

 

[HarveyH42]

I don't get the hole oil theory, I believe that the war was illegal but I don't see the US looting the country of all its oil - it just doesn't add up.

Guess it makes a lot more sense, if you wear tin-foil hats...

I think they chose Iraq, from a military stand point. Didn't really have anything to do with weapons inspection, Sadamn's disgusting idea of morals (pedophile), oil, or money laying around. Iraq pretty much divides the middle east, from sea to sea, only Iran to the north. The terrorist we are trying to take down, don't have a specific country or place they claim as home. They could easily slip in and out of Afghanistan, where we had to be careful about crossing borders. They are basically tolerated, or have a few friends to help them throughout the region. The tolerance, being that if they aren't blowing stuff up in which ever country they are visiting, nobody messes with them. With the region divided, they are a little more limited in where they can run. If they cross into Iraq, we can do what we need to do with them. Since we have such a huge force in the region, the neighboring countries aren't as friendly to them either, since they could be next, if caught hiding the terrorist.

Next year, when/if Obama delivers on his promises to bring the troops home, both Iraq and Afghanistan will quickly revert to their previous ways, most likely worse than before. The elected government will die horribly, murder, blown up.

 

[BrownOut]

I doubt it was a military decision, especially considering the US already has bases in the mid east. I don't think it had anything to do with the terrorists either, for many reasons like they weren't there and Al Qaeda was not on friendly terms with Saddam anyway. Ah, but Iraq has something valuable and that's oil. They sit on the world's second largest oil reserve. The west has long wanted new PSA's and with a friendly government, they can finally have them. Of course, you won't get that from CNN of Fox News, or any of the mainstream press. The press went along with the whole WMD story, and they aren't about to be exposed as fools by telling the story. But the story is there, one must only look for it.

It was the perfect time to go after Iraq, for those who were in charge at the time. They could use the terrorists excuse, which go the country behind them. They were all oil and defense lobbyists anyway. They could line their friend’s pockets and get a good bump in their reelection numbers. In addition, they could take attention away from the fact they failed to catch those who murdered 300 American. It would have almost been foolish of them to not start a war.

 

[HiTech]

Lots of dictators far worse than Saddam have not been removed from power by the US.

Take North Korea's Dear Leader for example, if human rights was so important to the US, they should've taken him out after the support of his regime by the Russians ended but before he developed nuclear weapons.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but this is the one that immediately came to mind.

Kim Jong Ding Dong didn't march 6 million Jews to their premature deaths, nor did he invade multiple nations on two continents! I would place Ghengis Khan and Sadaam Hussein above Kim Jong Il of N.K. as a direct threat against their own countrymen. Kim Ding Dong is more of a pest to the world than he is to his own people.

 

[ljcox]

Lots of dictators far worse than Saddam have not been removed from power by the US.

Take North Korea's Dear Leader for example, if human rights was so important to the US, they should've taken him out after the support of his regime by the Russians ended but before he developed nuclear weapons.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but this is the one that immediately came to mind.

You seem to have forgotten about China.

They fought for NK during the Korean war and have virtually unlimited manpower.

As for Saddam, I supported his removal, but I now feel that it was a mistake to take on Iraq before stabilising Afghanistan.

 

[Hero999]

Kim Jong Ding Dong didn't march 6 million Jews to their premature deaths, nor did he invade multiple nations on two continents! I would place Ghengis Khan and Sadaam Hussein above Kim Jong Il of N.K. as a direct threat against their own countrymen. Kim Ding Dong is more of a pest to the world than he is to his own people.

If the US really gave a toss about human rights, they would've sorted the Soviets out before they developed nuclear weapons.

The US has propped up bad governments in the past because they were anti-Communist, e.g. South Vietnam where the US actually supressed democracy due to the fear of a Communist victory and they supported Chiang Kai-shek's white terror in Taiwan.

 

[ljcox]

The first point is simplistic.

The Russians had a massive army by 1945 and the US would have had to use nuclear arms to have any prospect of success. Also, the allies had had enough of war by then.