Baraka,
You made me see exactly how your mind works. I have some good questions.
>What would these other governments be? Well, I already mentioned Iran and Syria and I mentioned them for a reason. Where do you think Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah- currently, the most prevalent and active terrorist organizations in the world- are based? Hezbollah was founded in Lebanon in 1982- and who controlled Lebanon for the past 20+ years until only recently? Hmmm...<
Right, and so you directly link these avowed terrorist organizations to governments and countries? I know you can find evidence of this support. And yet you discount Saddams involvement with terrorist organizations? So if one does it, it must be OK or what? Iran, Syria, et al, at least try to cover up much of their involvement, especially that which leads to deaths. Mainly because they are afraid of retaliation by Israel. Saddam was much more out front. Much more nuts.
My original point was about Saddam's blatent, advertised intent to pay families of suicide bombers. I have not heard of other countries or governments doing this.
>And which country has a history of actively collaborating with both of these organizations to kill scores of Americans over the past 20+ years? I'll give you a hint: the country begins with an "I" and is just a typo away from being "Iraq".<
You are correct, and they are being addressed. Or are you calling for the invasion of Iran also?
>Wait a second... are you saying that the Mullahs in Iran are somehow less "nuts" than Saddam was during his reign? That's sort of like arguing that Stalin was worse than Hitler, or that Hitler was worse than Mao, or any other my-dictator-can-beat-up-your-dictator comparison that you can dream up. Both countries (Iran/Iraq) used chemical and biological weapons on each other. Both have been extremely brutal to their own people. One was/is an extremist Islamist theocracy and the other was a secular Islamist dictatorship. The US government chose to get involved in that whole clusterfuck and picked sides. And you know what? They got burned and the American people got burned for supporting a power hungry, megalomanic dictator.<
Of course you can make judgements about the quality of dictators. And yes, obviously Hitler was worse than Stalin, by any measure you care to look at. And yes, Saddam turned out to be worse than the Mullahs, who spend more time trying to prop up their own power, than invading other coutries or gassing their own people. Saddam had total control in Iraq, and many more assets with which to create havoc than Iran. Syria is not even on the same
scale as Saddam.
Once again, you must look at history in context. During the beginning of his reign, Saddam was more attractive because he was a secularist, and was the avowed enemy of the Ayatollah, who had held our people for 444 days, and overthrown our buddy the Shah. Then with each passing year, he proved what he was actually about, mainly his aim to create a panIslamic state, with himself as the head, and control of the world oil reserves. Consequently, the US, over the years, changed our perception of Saddam, and how he was treated.
The point which is ignored, and should be pounded home is this: We learned what Saddam was, abandoned support for him, and set about to thwart his aims and goals. Many other countries, rather than support the US, stepped in and filled the economic void left by the US pull out of Iraq support. They all knew exactly how bad Saddam was, and yet they climbed into bed with him anyway. Where is the global media rebuke for this? France, Germany, Russia, and China, sold out their moral gounding in the name of MONEY.
>Either way, your statement, "No other middle eastern governments have proved to be as nuts, at this point in time, as Saddam was." is still lost upon me. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, though.<
Well, there is hardly any reason to tote up the atrocities. Saddam wins by a landslide. If you do a bit of research, I am sure you will agree.
>You're right. Israel was an avowed enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Unfortunately, Israel is an avowed enemy of every other Islamist nation in the Middle East. And, guess what? So is the US.<
You must be kidding. You believe that SA, Kuwait, Yemen, the UAE, etc etc, are the avowed enemy of the US?
>Says who?<
History.
>And what history is that?<
The history of Saddam's 20 year rule. If you are not familiar with it, do the research.
>Again, in view of all these new points I've raised, I ask you: why did the US attack Iraq instead of an Iran, or a Syria?<
First, I have not seen any valid points you have raised.
But I have answered many times: Iraq was a much greater threat than Iran or Syria, because of their acquired technology, oil revenues, Saddam's hording of OFF money, and greatest of all, proven intent and capability. Neither Iran or Syria has or had any of those.
>Fair enough. So why not run with the re-established UN inspection regime, wait for Saddam to kick them out again (or do something equally as stupid) and then go to war with a worldwide, cohesive- not to mention legitimate- coalition? Why rush to war in March of 2003 when they did? Clearly, there was no imminent threat to anyone in the region, let alone a country about 10000 miles away. The Duelfer Report says as much.<
So, just let the inspectors muddle around in country for a few more months, declare the country free of WMD, and then leave? The only freaking reason Saddam allowed the inspectors back in country was because of hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on the other side of his border! So you wanted to just leave those guys there to enforce the ability of the inspectors to do there work?
Further, the evidence was that Saddam was still thwarting the inspectors, not allowing access to areas, demanding notice of inspeciton of areas, moving of equipment and supplies before inspections, etc, etc.
Then, after we would have left the area, what did the Duelfer report say Saddam's plan was? To start back production bigger and better than before. He was openly developing his delivery systems, contrary to UN resolutions, in order to be ready for his improved WMD.
Once again, nobody, especially Bush, said Saddam was an imminent threat! Bush said he wanted him out BEFORE he became an imminent threat! Why would any leader take his country to the edge before facing a threat?
Lastly, it was obvious that the above mentioned coutries had sold their individual and collective souls in the matter of Saddam, and in the name of money. There would never be any cooperation from those countries as long as they were making money from Saddam.
>That's very debatable. It's also somewhat of a distorted statement, since the "Al Qaeda" that you're referring to was technically hiding out in the US-supported portion of Northern Iraq, controlled not by Saddam, but by the Kurds. Yes, the US government supported these "freedom fighters", or whatever you want to call them. And it's easy to see why. The US also supported KLA "freedom fighters" against Slobodan Milosevic in the runup to the airwar in Kosovo 6 years ago. There is a very long and rich history of the US government supporting terrorist organizations whenever those parties served US interests. Sorry.<
Huh? Al-Zarqawi and his group were already in Iraq! He was wounded in Afghanistan, and retreated to Iraq where he was given sanctuary. He was not in the northern training areas.
There were also other Al Queda cells located in Iraq. To say that the US was supporting Al Queda in Iraq against Saddam is absurd. What source do you have for that bit of news? Further, the Kurds did not control any part of Iraq. They LIVED in northern Iraq. Saddam frequently showed them his force and control. The no fly zone did not prohibit the movement of ground troops.
>But let's say I believe you about Al Qaeda really operating out of Iraq before the Iraq War. You know what? Iran and Syria also provided- and continue to provide- safe haven and sanctuary to terrorists. Again, I ask: why Iraq?<
Please see above.
>You're always entitled to your opinion. The CIA also had/has an opinion on this very subject and their view kinda differs from yours. If you'd like to qualify your opinion with some facts and references, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm very curious where you get your information from.<
First, what is/was the view of the CIA? Or rather, what do you believe? I saw, read, and heard Clinton appointed CIA chief Tenet say that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk". I also heard him say Saddam was a tremendous threat. What more could you ask for?
Most, if not all information on Saddam, his intent and capabilities can be easily found. If you want to find it and read. The Duelfer report is very eye opening.
But as far as the risk involved from Saddam, you would have to be blind, or truly biased, not to see it, just from his previous actions.
>Time will tell, right? Good luck with your predictions, for everyone's sake.<
Let us hope that hearts and minds of the terrorist can be changed. That they no longer want to destroy the west in order to protect their desired way of life.
Bigger
