Maybe Sadam didn't have WMD's right now and maybe he destroyed them before we came in for fear of it. If he didn't have them yet how long would it have been before he got them? Do you honestly think that given the chance he wouldn't have tried to use/use a WMD he wouldn't have? I think bush made a descision based on him thinking that Sadam had WMD's. If he was wrong are we really that worse off. You guys are to caught up in the present to think about the future. So 600 US soldiers have died so far in the war against Iraq. They signed up willing to die for their country to make it a safer place. I think that is a little better than 10,000 innocent american citizens dying because Sadam used a WDM. One of those citizens could have even been you...
How many of you think that Sadam would have never done something?
- Thread starter Supertastic Fool
- Start date
Where's the poll?
BTW, you're too caught up in the "glory of war" to think about the future. You don't think terrorist attacks will INCREASE due to the U.S. invading and occupying a sovereign Arab nation, rich with oil?
BTW, you're too caught up in the "glory of war" to think about the future. You don't think terrorist attacks will INCREASE due to the U.S. invading and occupying a sovereign Arab nation, rich with oil?
I think that like it is now suspected that Saddam meant to get wmds in one form or another after the sanctions were lifted and use them to strengthen his grip on the country and threaten his neighbours. I dont think he would use them since he would be risking too much for too little.
Saddam most certainly would have loosed 50-100 nuclear warheads on the U.S. and destroyed our civilization, assuming he lived another 1000 years, found some yellow cake, and could restrain himself long enough to not execute his scientists.
Anyway, this is sheer speculation. Should we make policy based on speculation?
-Robert
Anyway, this is sheer speculation. Should we make policy based on speculation?
-Robert
He didn't destroy them in fear before the US came. You do'nt just dump chemical or biological weapons in a pond and not having people notice. If there were any mass destruction of WMD prior to the war, you can bet your ass that the US intelligence would have picked up on it. And there's a reason why nobody in the Bush administration has suggested he did such things, because it's impossible for him to have without leaving any trace or trail of it.
As for would he have used any against the US. No way in hell. Look what the US did to him for just invading another small country, and what the US did to Afghanistan because it harbored terrorist that did attack the US. He wasn't blind, he knew what the US could do and what they were willing to do. NO WAY IN HELL would he have attempted an attack on the US in any form, whether direct attack, funding another group, or selling the WMD to terrorists.
Bah your poll is confusing. Your thread title and poll question are opposite. I voted Yes to the thread title, when the poll title would have been a No.
WAIT A MINUTE.
so now we are trying to justify a war based on what someone MIGHT have done in the future??
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.
so now we are trying to justify a war based on what someone MIGHT have done in the future??
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.
Why would he use them? In the past he used them in the war with Iran and to suppress an uprising. He never used them against anyone who could nuke him back. He didn't use them in desert storm, or in iraqi freedom.
So where is the 10,000 dead Iraqis in your equation? Oh I get it, your dog's life is probably more precious then those Iraqis huh?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
THe moment Saddam used a WMD on us or our allies, he would have been dead within the week. Not captured. Dead.
What would that gain him? You obviously have no idea about the man. He lived in fear. To strike us would have been totally against his paranoid nature.
Incorrect premise.
What would that gain him? You obviously have no idea about the man. He lived in fear. To strike us would have been totally against his paranoid nature.
Incorrect premise.
Like you say he had them since the 80's, yet he didn't use them against us in the Gulf War, and he didn't use them against us in the 12 years after. He had every opportunity, and motivation, and didn't. Now I know he isn't a rational guy and my logic doesn't apply to him, but that was what happened.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
Not if we've killed all the terrorists.
option A: Let a dictator own all the oil to fund terrorism, while suppressing/torturing his own people
option B: Get rid of the dictator, give the oil back to the people, and kill some terrorists along the way
We're not at war with Al Queada - we're at war with all terrorism.
What was he going to use, and who was going to use it? The Republican Guard?
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. :laugh:
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. :laugh:
Originally posted by: Perknose
glenn1, Moonbean wouldn't never intentionally use a double negative to make a point.
Yup, I woulda not never. I was trying to stick with the tintinntabulation of the Topic Title:
"How many of you think that Sadam would have never done something?
Hmm... No way in hell?
If he saw and realized what we did to him for invading a small country... He should have fully laid everything on the table for UN inspectors and the rest.
He knew what happened on Sept. 11 and that we weren't going to stand for it any longer. He had time to leave the country, or lay it all on the line and avoid this entire thing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter