Was Saddam any threat to the US?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:42:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Was Saddam any threat to the US?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Was Saddam any threat to the US?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Was Saddam any threat to the US?  (Read 2266 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,581
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 01, 2006, 09:37:37 PM »

No, he was not in any way. He probably actually was a slightly net positive if you look at things only in terms of relation to the US, since he was torturing and killing loads of Islamists and terrorists, plus he killed Abu Nidal (even though he wasn't an Islamist)
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2006, 10:16:49 PM »

Absolutely, (and you didn't vote)
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,172
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2006, 01:41:28 AM »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2006, 04:46:41 AM »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.

The Old Bush, as you call him, did not try to invade Iraq and fail.  He declined to invade Iraq, and stopped at pushing them out of Kuwait.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,172
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2006, 05:14:49 AM »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.

The Old Bush, as you call him, did not try to invade Iraq and fail.  He declined to invade Iraq, and stopped at pushing them out of Kuwait.

On Wiki it says the US led forces retreated on the way to Baghdad because they expected heavy resistance around Baghdad and by lack of support by the coalition forces. But maybe you know better what happened back in 1991, i was just 4 years old then Tongue
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2006, 07:43:43 AM »

Yes, he actively and knowingly harbored and aided terrorists.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2006, 09:30:23 AM »
« Edited: September 02, 2006, 11:48:39 AM by dazzleman »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.

The Old Bush, as you call him, did not try to invade Iraq and fail.  He declined to invade Iraq, and stopped at pushing them out of Kuwait.

On Wiki it says the US led forces retreated on the way to Baghdad because they expected heavy resistance around Baghdad and by lack of support by the coalition forces. But maybe you know better what happened back in 1991, i was just 4 years old then Tongue

US forces never started the trip to Baghdad.  Wiki is simply wrong.  Do I smell political bias?

The ground war lasted only about 4 days.  Feb. 23-27.  It was exactly 100 hours, IIRC, and followed about 6 weeks of heavy bombing throughout Iraq.  The aim of the operation was to throw Iraq out of Kuwait.  The decision had been made not to pursue retreating Iraqi forces into Iraq from Kuwait, but to leave a "defanged" Saddam in power, hopefully without the capacity to cause further mischief.  The mandate was not for regime change at the time.  I think it is safe to say that the coalition partners could have marched easily to Baghdad had they chosen to; that was not the issue.  They did not want to govern the whole mess, and feared the destabilizing influence on other countries in the region.

I thought at the time that we should have at least occupied the southern portion of Iraq, near Basra, in order to maintain some leverage against the government, and demonstrate Saddam's impotence to his people.  But that probably would have led to a lot of problems also.

The US and the coalition came in for some criticism in the immediate aftermath of the war when Saddam turned his ugly vengeance on the Kurds, and the coalition partners initially failed to protect them.  There was also an uprising in Basra immediately after the end of the war that the US and coalition partners failed to support.

Eventually, Saddam was restricted from activities in the Kurdish zone, and it became semi-autonomous.  There was a no-fly zone later established in the Shi'ite south to protect the Shi'ites from the Sunnis.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2006, 09:33:05 AM »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.

The Old Bush, as you call him, did not try to invade Iraq and fail.  He declined to invade Iraq, and stopped at pushing them out of Kuwait.

On Wiki it says the US led forces retreated on the way to Baghdad because they expected heavy resistance around Baghdad and by lack of support by the coalition forces. But maybe you know better what happened back in 1991, i was just 4 years old then Tongue
The reasons for the withdrawal are largely subject to speculation. They might not have been willing to lose Saddam. They might have thought that the Iraqi people would do him in anyways. They might have wanted to prevent a Shi'a takeover of Iraq. They might have felt that toppling Saddam was not worth G.I. lives, and was not what they went to war for. etc. Probably a mix of several of these.

Daz's post in came in before mine...
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2006, 11:28:29 AM »



Yes.  Don't ask stupid questions.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2006, 11:41:23 AM »

Yes he was, but there are still plenty of dictators (both then and now) who require our 'attention' much moreso than Saddam.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2006, 11:50:05 AM »

No, he was not, or do you think Iraq was capable of invading the US ? He was more of a threat to the European countries than ever to the US. The US and Iraq used to be partners back in the 80s, remember ? But you see what comes out when you choose the wrong partners. After the CIA-killing of Mossadegh in the 50s and the Islamic Revolution in 79 the US helped their new partner Iraq to solve the mess they created by themselves. But unfortunately Iraq was not able to defeat Iran and they therefore invaded Kuwait, what was not exaclty what the US wanted and therefore their partner Saddam was now their enemy. The Old Bush now tried to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and he failed. Then sanctions followed and the younger Bush came to power and tried it too, removing Saddam from power, but created another mess by developing a "Training Ground of Terrorists" No, Saddam was not a threat to the US, but the self-serving Middle East policy of the US is the biggest threat to the US.

The Old Bush, as you call him, did not try to invade Iraq and fail.  He declined to invade Iraq, and stopped at pushing them out of Kuwait.

On Wiki it says the US led forces retreated on the way to Baghdad because they expected heavy resistance around Baghdad and by lack of support by the coalition forces. But maybe you know better what happened back in 1991, i was just 4 years old then Tongue
The reasons for the withdrawal are largely subject to speculation. They might not have been willing to lose Saddam. They might have thought that the Iraqi people would do him in anyways. They might have wanted to prevent a Shi'a takeover of Iraq. They might have felt that toppling Saddam was not worth G.I. lives, and was not what they went to war for. etc. Probably a mix of several of these.

Daz's post in came in before mine...

Good point about the expected overthrow of Saddam.  I suspect that the Bush administration didn't imagine that Saddam could survive such an ignominious defeat, and the thinking was, why pay a price for what is going to happen anyway?

There really was no withdrawal from Iraq at that time, in the sense that there was never an occupation of Iraqi territory by the coalition forces.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2006, 11:51:05 AM »



Yes.  Don't ask stupid questions.

Asking stupid questions is probably marginally better than making completely idiotic statements, something that the originator of this thread excels at.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2006, 12:13:48 PM »

Not a threat to 'the US', as in the physical place, and also no threat to the imperial State, nor to the majority of its subjects. 

But he must've been a threat to at least some portion of the politically powerful elite which controls america, or he wouldn't have been chosen as the latest excuse for the defense budget.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,581
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2006, 12:16:05 PM »

It's not a stupid question. I don't see any way in which Saddam threatened the US.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2006, 12:32:53 PM »

Yes he was, but there are still plenty of dictators (both then and now) who require our 'attention' much moreso than Saddam.

Exactly.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2006, 12:56:37 PM »



Yes.  Don't ask stupid questions.

Might as well ask him to stop posting all together.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,581
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2006, 01:05:01 PM »

Perhaps I should put it this way, in what way would the US be in a much more dangerous position with Saddam still in power?

Now I'll admit, he might have been a bit of a threat to Israel since he did harbor some Palestinean terrorists, but:

-Israel is capable militarily of defending itself on its own against any threat Saddam posted
-Israel had much bigger threats (which it was still capable of handling)
-The new Iraqi government isn't really any better for Israel anyway
Logged
GOP = Terrorists
Progress
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2006, 02:22:14 PM »

He was only a threat in that he was an excuse for the neo-cons warmongers to destroy America.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2006, 02:36:55 PM »

He was only a threat in that he was an excuse for the neo-cons warmongers to destroy America.

Yes, I bet that's exactly what every neocon wants to do.  Come on.
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2006, 05:58:17 PM »

No!!!!  None whatsoever.  The administration has more or less admitted to this.

Their current retroactive precept used as an excuse for invading Iraq was to spread democracy in the Middle East.  Saddam had no military, no planes, no ships and THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!  He had no intention of harming us.

But if you want to know the truth, it's totally obvious now due to the investigative work of Greg Pallast.  He wrote all about it in his book "Armed Madhouse".  The cat is out of the bag, folks.

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/why_saddam_had_to_go.htm


fb
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,008


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2006, 11:02:12 AM »

Saddam was a threat to his own people, and maybe to countries surrounding Iraq, but not to the U.S.  That said, it's a good thing he's out of power.  But the ends do not justify the means.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2006, 09:06:49 PM »

Saddam was a threat to his own people, and maybe to countries surrounding Iraq, but not to the U.S.  That said, it's a good thing he's out of power.  But the ends do not justify the means.

agreed.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 13 queries.