Saddam challenges Bush to televised debate

[cawthon777 0]

The things that seems to get me is that if he hasn't done anything yet, in the last twelve years, why expect him to do anything now?

That's a great theory. Let's just sit on our ass and see what he comes up with. He hasn't done anything prior to now so that obviously means he's not a threat.

 

Wake up.

[Guest Some Guy]

I think calling the possibility of him destroying Israel "quite the dickhead of moves" is a bit of an understatement, don't you?

 

Why is that I hear the Left in this country and others kind of ignore or disregard the evil things that Saddam has done and then scream from the mountain tops about how evil George Bush is? It makes no sense.

 

Saddam's not exactly a stand-up guy, but all he's doing is sitting in his own country, not hurting anyone over here.

 

Yeah, Hitler was just sitting in his country not hurting anyone outside of his country either for a while too. He was stopckpiling weapons and building up the German army and murdering Jews and Gypsies, while teh rest of the world said, "well he isn't hurting us yet." How'd that work out for the world?

 

I see so many naive people talk about Saddam like he's that gay Southpark character and not a ruthless tyrant. It's pretty sad.

[cawthon777 0]

I see so many naive people talk about Saddam like he's that gay Southpark character

That would make this whole situation so much more entertaining.

[Guest treble charged]

The things that seems to get me is that if he hasn't done anything yet, in the last twelve years, why expect him to do anything now?

That's a great theory. Let's just sit on our ass and see what he comes up with. He hasn't done anything prior to now so that obviously means he's not a threat.

 

Wake up.

Then why wouldn't he have done anything 5 years ago when we had our guard down? I know Saddam's a dangerous guy, but, to me at least, he only seems to do something when provoked.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Yeah, that's my main problem with going into Iraq. Sure, Saddam's not exactly a stand-up guy, but all he's doing is sitting in his own country, not hurting anyone over here. Is it really THAT imperative that we go in there as soon as possible?

Well one of the plans for America's war on terror is to "mess up" countries that take kindly to terrorist organizations or wish America ill. Iraq is a good start and if you ask me, it should have been done a whole lot sooner. You can't stop terrorism you can only hope to contain it. Installing American friendly governments and eliminating anti-American tyrants/governments is as good of a strategy as any.

[Guest Some Guy]

In what way did Kuwait provoke him?

 

The guy obviously has asspirations of dominating the Middle East, he had compiled quite a few WMD before he invaded, we destroyed a lot of them and he has slowly tried to rebuild them over the last 12 years. He also may have become a nuclear power if the Israelis hadn't destroyed his reactor.

 

TC, it's interesting that you should say 5 years. In 1998 Clinton dropped about 150 missiles in Iraq and nobody really batted an eye. They knew that he wasn't going to anything meaningful, he was just going to kill people for no purpose and he's a liberal Democrat. I'm convinced that if this were a Democrtatic President the anti-war protests would be far fewer and farther between. Canada for instance jumped right on Clinton's anti-Iraq bandwagon and have balked at Bush. Hmmm.....

[Guest treble charged]

I just pulled 5 years out of the air. Admittedly, I do not know a whole lot about the whole middle east situation. However, Saddam had been out of the news, for the most part, until Bush decided that he wanted to go after him.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I just pulled 5 years out of the air. Admittedly, I do not know a whole lot about the whole middle east situation. However, Saddam had been out of the news, for the most part, until Bush decided that he wanted to go after him.

Most Americans had never heard of Osama-BinLaden and Al-Qaida until September 11th, 2001. Just because they're not in the news, doesn't make them a threat

[Guest Some Guy]

I know you pulled 5 years out of the air, it was just good for me to further my point.

 

The reason Saddam has been out of the news for the most part is because the world is generally cowardly and prefers to ignore and avoid problems until they absolutely have to deal with them. We have to deal with Saddam now, this is not "a rush to war" as the French and others have called it, this war has been 12 years in the making and really has been a constant minor war over the no fly zones for 12 years. It's time to stop skirting the issue and deal with this problem. The world will be a better place when all the smoke has cleared and Saddam is dead or in exile.

[cawthon777 0]

I just pulled 5 years out of the air. Admittedly, I do not know a whole lot about the whole middle east situation. However, Saddam had been out of the news, for the most part, until Bush decided that he wanted to go after him.

Clinton ignored him, plain and simple. Bush Sr. wanted him gone but then we got the anti-military president who didn't do a thing following the bombing of the Twin Towers in 93, the USS Kohl, etc.

 

George W made Saddam a target from the moment he was elected. That may not have meant he wanted to use military force - but he knew it was a situation that could no longer be ignored.

 

Then came 9-11.

 

It's not that Bush is out to get Saddam for his own selfish purposes - it's that the previous administration refused to deal with the problem.

[Guest Brian]

You don't think oil plays some motive in it, cawthon?

[Guest Some Guy]

I do think oil plays a part in it but not as big as you might want to think. I haev outlines the reasons I am in favor of getting rid of Saddam and a regime change, oil is way down my list, it's pretty much an afterthought. You've read my posts on that and commented on them. I've pretty much said that after we're done with Iraq we should get the fuck out with a good oil deal. We will have invested countless billions of dollars and many lifes into liberating Iraq, getting a good oil deal is not too much to take in return.

 

Does America benifiting in any way make this war or any foriegn policy unjust? I'm of the eopinion that we should do very little in the way of foriegn policy if we don't benifit. We aren't the world's charity.

[cawthon777 0]

You don't think oil plays some motive in it, cawthon?

Personally? No, I don't.

 

If we were the bad evil imperialistic country that everyone makes us out to be, we could just as easily take over Saudi Arabia. They are the world's leading oil exporter with more than twice as much as Iraq. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi and, despite the pro-American stance from the royal family (that really has no power at all over its people), the Saudis are leading the way in terms of anti-Americanism and breeding terrorism.

 

On a personal note, my uncle - who was in the navy at the time - was on shore leave in Saudi back in the mid 80s. He was in a very bad car wreck that almost cost him his life and ultimately resulted in him walking with a limp to this day. What was the Saudis' response? Imprison him because he was the forienger, despite the fact he was not at fault for the accident. Thankfully my dad was able to sneak him out of the country.

 

These guys are not our "friends" even if they claim to be our "allies".

[Guest JMA]

Sigh. I really wish Bush Sr. would have taken out Saddam when he had the chance. He probably would've won the election if he did (not that I'd want him to). Anyways, Bush Jr. could gain a lot of credibility with voters if he doesn't take ANY oil from Iraq. That would guarantee him more votes.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Yeah, that's my main problem with going into Iraq. Sure, Saddam's not exactly a stand-up guy, but all he's doing is sitting in his own country, not hurting anyone over here. Is it really THAT imperative that we go in there as soon as possible?

Check the UN Resolution thread.

 

You don't think oil plays some motive in it, cawthon?

Not much. The war for oil argument is both tired and wrong. Iraq contributes 3% of the world's oil. If the US took over tomorrow and ran an excellent oil refinery program for 10 years, production would rise to 3.5% of the world's oil.

[cawthon777 0]

Sigh. I really wish Bush Sr. would have taken out Saddam when he had the chance. He probably would've won the election if he did (not that I'd want him to).

That's the problem. Back then the UN didn't give him the chance. All he could do was remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

[Guest JMA]

The war for oil argument is both tired and wrong. Iraq contributes 3% of the world's oil. If the US took over tomorrow and ran an excellent oil refinery program for 10 years, production would rise to 3.5% of the world's oil.

Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia). Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is largely (90% or so) unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored. Iraq's oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect.

[Guest JMA]

That's the problem. Back then the UN didn't give him the chance. All he could do was remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

I agree with you there.

[Guest Kingpk]

Clinton ignored him, plain and simple.

 

That's not entirely true. I happened to run across some old Time magazines yesterday that had articles on the "war" he almost green lighted. His plan was extremely half assed (bomb his bioweapons plants and military installations, wait 12 months, then do it again) no one really gave much of a reason to do it, and the Lewinsky scandal was heating up, so people weren't exactly happy with it.

 

This was 5 years ago almost to the day, too (late February/early March).

[cawthon777 0]

Clinton ignored him, plain and simple.

 

That's not entirely true. I happened to run across some old Time magazines yesterday that had articles on the "war" he almost green lighted. His plan was extremely half assed (bomb his bioweapons plants and military installations, wait 12 months, then do it again) no one really gave much of a reason to do it, and the Lewinsky scandal was heating up, so people weren't exactly happy with it.

 

This was 5 years ago almost to the day, too (late February/early March).

Most of Clinton's military actions were for political reasons - not to protect the U.S. What do you do when the media won't leave the Lewinsky story alone? Give them something else to talk about.

[Guest treble charged]

Sort of like Bush not being able to get bin Laden, so he goes after Saddam instead?

[cawthon777 0]

Sort of like Bush not being able to get bin Laden, so he goes after Saddam instead?

We laid Afganistan to waste, dismantled al-Queda, and caught / killed hundereds of terrorists in the process. Not quite the same thing.

[Guest treble charged]

But, bin Laden was the figurehead, so to speak, of 9/11. People wanted his head on a stake, and, so far Bush hasn't done that. However, saying, 'Hey look, I got rid of Saddam!' could very easily take people's minds off of bin Laden.

[Guest DrTom]

The things that seems to get me is that if he hasn't done anything yet, in the last twelve years, why expect him to do anything now?

He gave large sums of money to Usama bin Laden on several occasions in the mid-1990s. We know this. Considering what bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda group did in 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2001, that alone is reason enough to go after him.

[Guest DrTom]

If we were the bad evil imperialistic country that everyone makes us out to be, we could just as easily take over Saudi Arabia. They are the world's leading oil exporter with more than twice as much as Iraq. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi and, despite the pro-American stance from the royal family (that really has no power at all over its people), the Saudis are leading the way in terms of anti-Americanism and breeding terrorism.

Agreed. Saudi Arabia is much richer in oil than Iraq, and has contributed more toward anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorism in the past twelve years than Iraq has. All of this while claiming to be our loyal allies, of course. The hell with those duplicitous bastards. If we want to collapse Saudi Arabia, all we have to do is withdraw our military. The Saud family won't last long after that. Then we can let the rival groups vying for power beat each other up before we clean up the whole mess. I'd love to see Saudi Arabia taken out, but not for its oil.

[Guest Marlow Jr]

I've yet to see any decent proof that Saddam Hussein has connections with Al-Queda and I think to say that he does is ludicrous.

[Guest DrTom]

Then you haven't been looking hard enough. It's out there; some of it is nonclassified and in the public domain. It's also been reported on shows like 60 Minutes, and the veracity of it has been confirmed by Israeli intelligence.

[cawthon777 0]

But, bin Laden was the figurehead, so to speak, of 9/11. People wanted his head on a stake, and, so far Bush hasn't done that. However, saying, 'Hey look, I got rid of Saddam!' could very easily take people's minds off of bin Laden.

To expect us to publically display his head on a stake for all to see is unrealistic. Yes, he was the figurehead. But what people don't understand is that if he's dead, nothing will change. Someone else will just take his place. So to focus all our attention on one man is rediculous.

 

Who's to say he's not dead and buried under rubble and that all these messages we get are fakes? With all the bombs we dropped in Afganistan, we can't say with 100% accuracy who's dead and who's alive - but most are dead.

[Guest JMA]

It's also been reported on shows like 60 Minutes, and the veracity of it has been confirmed by Israeli intelligence.

I'm not sure I would take Israeli information about Muslim extremists as gospel.

[Guest BDC]

And why not? Who would know more? Who is built to fight them? The Israelis are the authorities when doing this. They've infiltrated numerous terrorist cells and fought them since the 40's.

 

So tell me why they wouldn't be a good source.