WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  SixofNine

  thus he was not all bad.

  Pull your head out. Saddam was the worst of the worst this earth has ever seen. His reign, with his sons, is a black comedy that would be rather funny if it were written by Shakespeare and set in less than modern times.

  It ain't funny now, and this planet cannot bear the weight of people like Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people certainly couldn't, w/o providing daily blood and bone and child sacrifices on the alter of that evil shits power structure.

  For godssakeman, one of his sons came to a more favoured position because the other killed Saddam's favourite food taster!
• 

  Realist

  6of9,

  that he was a ruthless dictator doesn't mean he didn't do good things for his country. he modernized iraq and made it to the leading nation in that area...and he kept the damn fundamentalists under control.

  also it is a mistake to believe all the BS thats published. similar to the lie about the babys that were thrown out of the incubators back in 1991 in kuwait many of the stories told now about hussein are certainly lies.
• 

  Reborn2002

  Saddam was the worst of the worst this earth has ever seen.

  I respectively disagree.

  Saddam Hussein indeed was a ruthless dictator and deserved everything he got and to be forcibly removed. But the worst ever? Hardly.

  Immediately the following spring to mind who caused millions more deaths than Hussein:

  • Adolf Hitler
  • Joseph Stalin
  • Pol Pot

  Or if you wish to go back to so-called Biblical times, what about Hannibal and Nero? Or even the loving Christian God who smites 185,000 in one night?

  Yes, Hussein was EVIL, but not the baddest of the bad.
• 

  patio34

  Six,

  Don't forget who put Saddam into power--the USA. Plus, that's not reason to invade and bomb a country. It's against international law. There would have been other ways to get him out of power, just as the US got the previous king out of power by assisting Saddam into power. Let's not forget history here.

  The issue was/is WMDs. The US was sure that they were there and that the UN inspectors were inept in not finding them. That's the ONLY issue that was the justification for the war. Oh! I forgot the tenuous tie to Osama bin Laden, which was spurious. Anyway, . . . oh never mind.

  Pat
• 

  SheilaM

  that he was a ruthless dictator doesn't mean he didn't do good things for his country.

  This could be said of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic also. But I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that gave a shit how much he did for the country, because when you terrorize your country men and they live in fear you know balancing the budget just isn't important.
• 

  SixofNine

  Give me a frickin' break. When I say he was the worst of the worst, I don't mean he was literally the human being with the most evil intent who has ever lived. How the hell would I measure that? He was indeed right up there with any other evil despot, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al included. If anything because he is now, he is worse. This not midevial history, this 2003. Good lord people, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't limit this to just a numbers game? Maybe that way we can save some lives in the future before the numbers get up into the two-three million plus range.

  Patio, don't see your point. Why is it of such obsesive concern to you that the US, as you put it, "put Saddam in power"? Are you so anal retentive that you think it's possible to clean up the closets of the past? It's called history for a reason. And no it's not pretty. As well, is it accurate to say the US put Saddam in power? Did he and his ilk not have anything to do with it? Hell, he took bullets coming into power. He certainly was never the puppet type.

  There would have been other ways to get him out of power,

  Ok, I'm all ears, and hopefully the plans don't involve a 5 to 10 year game plan. I've wondered myself if it could have been done with money, but I don't see a plausible scenario, even with billions of dollars, that gets Saddam out and gives Iraqis a chance at democracy of one form or another.

  That's the ONLY issue that was the justification for the war.

  Doesn't look that way now, does it? lol

  Frankly, I think it was mostly about positioning. I think America is much better positioned in the region now than several months ago. I think we'll end up with bases in Iraq and flowers in our helmets for years to come

  Hasn't all mankind been groaning together for lo these many years? I simply tune out the political groans and focus on the more physical groans. Be thankful for the progress we've made, rather than seeing only negatives in all this. Go ahead and hate war, I certainly do, but it is kinder and gentler than ever before. That's progress, though I don't think you'll see it in "watching the world".

  that he was a ruthless dictator doesn't mean he didn't do good things for his country.

  Now you're just being silly.

  ps. law shmaw ;)
• 

  Reborn2002

  Give me a frickin' break. When I say he was the worst of the worst, I don't mean he was literally the human being with the most evil intent who has ever lived. How the hell would I measure that? He was indeed right up there with any other evil despot, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al included. If anything because he is now, he is worse. This not midevial history, this 2003. Good lord people, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't limit this to just a numbers game? Maybe that way we can save some lives in the future before the numbers get up into the two-three million plus range.

  No need to get condescending and snippy with your remarks Six. I was merely pointing out that if you look into history, Saddam Hussein is nowhere near as bad as others. Could he have been? Potentially. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. One cannot speculate, we should only address facts.

  If you also consider that he did allow Christian people into his country... whereas other fundamentalist Muslim nations such as Iran and the shahs forbid it.

  Or how about the accusations the Hussein be removed for using chemical weapons on his own people? Is not the United States government guilty of this? No one seems to remember the Tuskegee Incident (in which African-American United States citizens were injected with syphilis to determine the effects, and this is in the 20th century) or Agent Orange in Vietnam.

  Or what about removing Hussein from power based on the premise that he was aspiring for nuclear weapons? The ONLY country in history to ever use nuclear weapons is the United States of America when bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nation with the largest stockpile on earth is the United States. However most Americans have difficulty in remembering history when it shows America's hypocrisies and actions in a bad light. Double-standard? You bet ya. Hypocritical? Sounds like it to me.

  Thusfar, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The fact remains that the justification for this war was solely that. If someone had the military might and invaded the United States because they may possess weapons but they are never found.. would everyone object?

  Have an unbiased look at matters and view things with an even administration of justice and you will see the hypocrisy here.
• 

  Reborn2002

  Damn I hit submit too soon.

  The point is that Dumb Ass Dubya gets on the platform and delivers a Presidential speech declaring that Hussein should be removed for being a vicious dictator, and Bush cites reasons and scenarios that the United States itself is guilty of.

  The United States government is a bully... PERIOD.

  Do I personally believe that Hussein needed to be removed? Yes. Do I think the explanation that the United States government is giving the public is legitimate? No. Let us not forget that the Persian Gulf War embarrassed our current President's father who marched to Baghdad and stopped, and in all likelihood that action prevented his re-election.

  Or that Hussein attempted to assassinate our sitting president's father.

  Or that there is an overwhelming amount of money to be made in oil contracts, and we now see evidence that underhanded dealings are taking place such as the scenario with Halliburton.

  If the United States feels the need to play global supercop and go removing tyrannical dictators.. why stop with Hussein? If anythin he should have been farther down the list. North Korea is FAR more advanced in developing nuclear weapons, and their missiles are within striking range of the western United States. Some will argue that diplomacy works better with Pyongang. However the Bush Administration feels the need to declare war and remove Hussein based on the notion that he possesses weapons of mass destruction that no one has found when North Korea is KNOWN to manufacture them?

  Or what about Tehran? Iran is a much larger opponent than Iraq. Bush even took the time to list them on his "Axis of Evil" in his now infamous Presidential Address. Why is nothing being done there?

  Bush is picking and choosing his fights, and because he is the Chief Executive and Saddam Hussein inadvertently humiliated his father and tried to kill him, Dubya wanted Hussein's head on a plate.

  Let's be real.
• 

  searchfothetruth

  Six of Nine,

  The fact that Saddam was put into power must have some bearing on the issue don't you think?

  He didn't turn bad overnight, he was as ruthless when he was put into power as he was after.

  When he gassed the Kurds, Donald Rumsfeld visited 2 years later and sold him MORe of the weapons that were then used as an excuse to go and invade the country.

  Whatever way you look at it, pre-emptive strike or invasion, both are illegal in international law.
• 

  SixofNine

  Jason, I'm never snippy and in this case I wasn't being condescending. But if you talk to me, I'll say things like "give me a frickin' break" and you'll likely get my point better because of it. I think most people enjoy a little color with their pixelated conversation, but anyway, that's just me.

  As to this:

  Saddam Hussein is nowhere near as bad as others.

  I simply don't know how you come to that conclusion unless it is about numbers dead. If it is about numbers dead, well, I've made my point about that. It's a good point. He was grotesquely ruthless. His son would torture athletes for their failures to win fergod'ssake. It really does not get any worse than that. What's that old chesnut "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and especially in despots"?

  If the United States feels the need to play global supercop and go removing tyrannical dictators.. why stop with Hussein? If anythin he should have been farther down the list. North Korea is FAR more advanced in developing nuclear weapons, and their missiles are within striking range of the western United States. Some will argue that diplomacy works better with Pyongang. However the Bush Administration feels the need to declare war and remove Hussein based on the notion that he possesses weapons of mass destruction that no one has found when North Korea is KNOWN to manufacture them?

  Or what about Tehran? Iran is a much larger opponent than Iraq. Bush even took the time to list them on his "Axis of Evil" in his now infamous Presidential Address. Why is nothing being done there?

  Bush is picking and choosing his fights, and because he is the Chief Executive and Saddam Hussein inadvertently humiliated his father and tried to kill him, Dubya wanted Hussein's head on a plate.

  Well, yes let's be real. There are practical issues to consider in each and every case you listed. As for your last assertion, I doubt seriously if that played heavily into Dubya's motivation. If anything, ignoring the issue would have lessened the humiliation for Senior, imo.

  Let's be real.

  Always up for that!