Was Saddam really a threat to our National Security

I also agree with you on this...but why Saddam seeing that most were saudis shouldnt we carpet bomb them......and was War our best option ( cost of lives and money) to fight terrorism...

let me ask you Mr. stock.....why are we fighting this WAR???? because it seems to change on a daily basis...tell me why we are at WAR, then perhaps we can discuss this further.....peace

 

"he tried to kill my dad" (W) ... for more "justifications" ask Perle & Wolfowitz

 

How Do I Liberate Thee?
Let Me Count the Ways

by Harry Browne
December 15, 2003

Sunday's capture of Saddam Hussein made it a great day — a great day for empty rhetoric and meaningless posturing by politicians and journalists.

Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush talked incessantly about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. with them — as well as Al Qaeda camps in the Iraqi desert. How does finding Saddam Hussein make Bush's claims any more true than they were last week?

We're told that that the Iraqis can see now that Saddam Hussein isn't coming back to power — as though they couldn't figure that out for themselves with 130,000 foreign troops occupying their country.

But in the wonderland occupied by politicians and journalists, the capture of Hussein must mean that all the resisters — also known as "loyalists of the old regime" — would have no more reason to resist.

Some politicians said that if anti-war protesters had their gotten way, Hussein would be in his palace today, instead of in jail. Yes, and if the anti-war protesters had gotten their way, several hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, instead of dead.

The press played its part in the celebration. Wolf Blitzer of CNN said that Hussein's capture proves to the world that "the President of the United States means business" — whatever that means.

In fact, we've known all along that George Bush means business — the business of getting reelected.

There were plenty of TV pictures of Iraqis firing AK-47s into the air. But no inquiring minds bothered to ask how everyday Iraqis could be carrying AK-47s out in the open, when the American occupiers have imposed strict gun-control edicts and are at war with resisters.

What if Saddam Hussein says that all the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed years ago? Well, we know that George Bush believes in preemptive strikes, and he's already made one on this front. On Monday, he said of Hussein:

He’s a liar. He’s a torturer. He’s a murderer. . . . He’s a — he’s just — he is what he is: He’s a person that was willing to destroy his country and to kill a lot of his fellow citizens. He’s a person who used weapons of mass destruction against citizens in his own country. And so it’s — he is the kind of person that is untrustworthy and I’d be very cautious about relying upon his word in any way, shape or form.

In other words, "Believe him only if he confirms what I've been telling you for the past year."

 

From James Stock:

"It befuddles me why some of you guys don't get it.
Two of the most prized US buildings were destroyed. That means war."

Can you please tell us why there weren't any Iraqi's in the 19 911 hijackers of whom fifteen were SAUDI NATIONALS that flew those planes into the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001?

Where is the Iraqi connection to 911, James?

If anything, SAUDI ARABIA should have been on the revenge list.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtradecenter.htm

 

This is absurd......

 

A good American is too busy waving the flag, listening to Rush Limbaugh, and watching Sean Hannity to read dissenting opinions.

 

ART, chilling isn't it? More should take time to travel outside US. Magna is absolutely right.

I see references of 9-11 and reason for revenge against Iraq/Sadam............So lets put this to rest again:

President Bush has admitted there's no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to September 11.
He was speaking after an opinion poll showed 70% of Americans believe the deposed Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12786088,00.html

No Iraq link / White House backs off on 9/11
Published September 20, 2003 ED20A
Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Wednesday, President Bush did the same. So why do seven in 10 Americans believe there is a link? Is it just their wild imaginings? Nope: It's because the White House planted the idea and has cultivated it assiduously for months. http://24hour.startribune.com/login/?goto=http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4107939.html

 

As is plainly obvious, Saddam was as much a threat to the US as Mother Theresa.

So what if his ambition was to take over the region's vast oil reserves, unite the arab world under his rule, and destroy Israel? We should excuse his invasion of Kuwait as a mere anomaly, for he has shown repeatedly in his decades of power that he is a man of sound mind, good character, and benevolent to his people and neighbors. How do we know this? Because our unbiased media accurately reports these statements from the mouths of Iraqis themselves.

We should also take his word for it that he eliminated his WMD programs, and that his financing of suicide bombers and assistance to terrorists, i.e. his little training camp complete with airliner fuselage, were merely his way of helping the underclass.

Yes, this is a man who posed as much of a threat as any convicted murderer let out on parole after being "rehabilitated." And rehabilitated he surely is. How do we know this? Because he didn't invade Kuwait again and he told us his weapons programs had been ended. Surely we can accept his word on this.

Being the benevolent nation we are, we should have allowed him to operate as normal, because by taking action against him and removing him from power we have violated his human rights. As ARogueTrader/Optional777 has pointed out repeatedly, the cost of maintaining our rights and freedoms, our very way of life, depends on forgiving past transgressions and doing the best we can.

Saddam and individuals like him cannot be labeled "evil." They are only sick, and the sick have to be dealt with compassionately at all times. It is not their fault that they are sick and do what they do, be it stuffing live prisoners feet-first into shredders, raping women plucked off the street by secret police, shooting suspected opponents en masse, torturing hundreds of thousands, etc. Until science can find a cure for the sadistic and megalomaniacal tendencies which infect certain human beings like Saddam, we cannot take take action against such people to ensure they do not commit further atrocities because, after all, it is not their fault that they are that way.

And so what if the cost of our benevolence is the occasional innocent lives lost here and there (which are of no great consequence in the grand scheme of things)?

Furthermore, as many wise ETers have stated, decades of our imperialistic foreign policy is to blame for 9/11 and this entire mess. We need to understand why we are hated and eliminate the cause of that hatred. It is our fault, and time we took responsibility for it.

Saddam Hussein epitomizes the very type of human being for whom we all need to give the benefit of the doubt. By not having done so, we are damned. Any rational person can tell you that.

 

HOLY SHIT MAN.

You are saying a man who murdered thousands of his countrymen is deserving of mercy? A man who invaded another country? Wake up...this guy is an early HITLER.




Iraq is the second target, the first was Afganistan for protecting Osama......We are there to clean up the WHOLE place.....this is just the beginning. These terrorists are screwing with the whole world. Not just the USA.

Have you all gone crazy?