How Dangerous is Saddam?

[Yax]

Okay, everyone agrees that Saddam is very dangerous. So, if he's so Dangerous, why didn't Bush Sr. finish him off when we had the chance and the support of the UN? Why wait so long. What makes today a better day then back then? Why rush in today when we let it go for so long already? Why didn't we finish off our business with Osama first? Why not North Korea first?

 

[bubbasmith99]

Okay, everyone agrees that Saddam is very dangerous. So, if he's so Dangerous, why didn't Bush Sr. finish him off when we had the chance and the support of the UN?

We had the permission of the UN to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. We didn't have their permission to invade Iraq.

Why wait so long. What makes today a better day then back then? Why rush in today when we let it go for so long already?

9/11 changed the way the us approached issues of global/international security.

it is now us policy to preempt threats to the security of the nation and its peoples.

Why didn't we finish off our business with Osama first?

There has been great progress made on that front. But to argue that we should wait till "our business with Osama" is complete is like trying to exterminate termites while your house is burning down. You cannot ignore one threat and focus exclusively on the other. That being said, the US still has people in Afghanistan and still has tons of people working on breaking al Qaeda into tiny little pieces. Just because he hasn't been caught doesn't mean Iraq should be ignored.

Why not North Korea first?

If we so much as sneeze on them they will fire nukes at Seoul and kill 500,000 people. Diplomacy is the only option there.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Okay, everyone agrees that Saddam is very dangerous. So, if he's so Dangerous, why didn't Bush Sr. finish him off when we had the chance and the support of the UN? Why wait so long. What makes today a better day then back then? Why rush in today when we let it go for so long already? Why didn't we finish off our business with Osama first? Why not North Korea first?

The goal of the UN in 1991 was not to remove Saddam from power but only to push him out of Kuwait.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: bubbasmith99

We had the permission of the UN to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. We didn't have their permission to invade Iraq.

We don't have the permission of the UN now.


9/11 changed the way the us approached issues of global/international security.

it is now us policy to preempt threats to the security of the nation and its peoples.

Why aren't we finishing off Osama then?


There has been great progress made on that front. But to argue that we should wait till "our business with Osama" is complete is like trying to exterminate termites while your house is burning down. You cannot ignore one threat and focus exclusively on the other. That being said, the US still has people in Afghanistan and still has tons of people working on breaking al Qaeda into tiny little pieces. Just because he hasn't been caught doesn't mean Iraq should be ignored.

Lots of people in Afghanistan, why isn't that bigger news? Could it be because we are diverting most of our attention to Iraq? Wasn't Osama the most wanted man?


Why not North Korea first?

If we so much as sneeze on them they will fire nukes at Seoul and kill 500,000 people. Diplomacy is the only option there.

So they threatened to kill lots of people and we downplay it? We go after Iraq first. I thought we were trying to make the world a better place? Iraq stopped threatening people after Dessert Storm so why aren't we considering Deplomacy first? I hardly think it was deplomacy when Pres Bush already determined we were going to invade no matter what.